Category: Media

  • John Menadue. The Great Complacency

    Professor Ross Garnaut has spoken many times about our great complacency and our unwillingness to undertake the types of economic and social reform that we saw in the Hawke/Keating periods and in the early days of the Howard Government – think, GST.

    Have the golden days of reform gone forever?

    The former head of Treasury Ken Henry said that he has never known a period in which the standard of public debate on important issues is as bad as it is today. Ross Garnaut has spoken with obvious frustration about the ‘diabolical problem’ of sensible policies on climate change.

    In April 2012 Greg Dodds and I posted an article on this blog ’The Asian Century and the Australian smoko’. We argued that whilst we responded well to the opportunities in Asia for over a decade we went on ‘smoko’ from the mid-1990s. Our Anglo-Celtic both enriched and trapped us. Fear of Asia was promoted.  John Horward gave us permission to be ‘relaxed and comfortable’ again, to have a break from the Asian challenge and opportunities. The result was two decades of drift by business, universities, schools and the media in equipping ourselves for the region .Complacency set in.

    Ross Garnaut poses questions for us again…

    ‘Do we have a problem that requires business adjustment, income restraint and new reforms to lift productivity? Or is the Australian ‘she’ll be right’ approach to economic policy in the early 21st Century good enough? Economic modelling for today’s Forum by Victoria University’s Centre of Policy Studies suggests that Australia does indeed have a sizeable problem with the real prospect of falling living standards to 2020 if nothing is done to avert it.’

    Can we counter those vested interests in the community, those ‘diabolical problems’ that consistently run good policies off the rails? And there are serious obstacles to address. There are powerful vested interests that are hostile to risk taking and want to hold on to privileged positions. They don’t want reform and change.

    Media

    In our 24/7 media cycle the short-term, the partisan, the confrontational and personalities dominate. The attention span of the media on important policy issues is very short. Our Canberra press gallery, including the ABC, is more concerned about politics than policy. News Corporation, which controls 70% of the metropolitan newspaper circulation, runs a partisan agenda that is unprofessional and self-serving. Just look at its denialism on climate change. News Corp distorts and debases almost every public policy issue it touches. What an awful legacy Rupert Murdoch will leave!

    The mainstream media is a serious problem not only because of concentration of power but it still influences the agenda in other under resourced media. Social media, even bloggers are filling some of the vacuum but it is nowhere near enough.  Why doesn’t the ABC establish a high quality online policy portal committed to articulating the key issues that we face?

    Lobbying

    The World Economic Forum in its 2013/4 Global Competitiveness Report on ‘favouritism in decisions of government officials’ ranked Australia poorly, well behind such countries as Singapore,Sweden,Netherlands, ,Norway,Japan, Germany and the UK. In transparency in government decision making we also ranked poorly.

    So much of the influence on governments is not exercised in public and contested discussion. The secret lobbying in Canberra and the state capitals has shown how lobbyists can effectively twist the arms of ministers. Lobbyists know that they cannot win an open debate with the public, so they exercise their enormous influence in secret. Think of what the Australian Minerals Council has done to corrupt good public policy in the resources sector. Consider what happens in the health field with the secret influence of the AMA, the Australian Pharmacy Guild, the Private Health Insurance funds and Medicines Australia. We will never get worthwhile health reform until these secretive and powerful vested interests are publicly confronted and forced to publicly defend their positions. And beyond these few examples there is the influence of the Australian Hotels Association in promoting the scourge of alcohol. We need to address the destructive power of the lobbying industry and its corruption of the public interest and public debate. Favouritism in government decision making and a lack of transparency is a major obstacle to good policy making.

    Political donations

    Associated with the corrupting power of both in house and third party lobbyists is the ability of powerful and wealthy groups to win favours from politcians with political donations. The NSW ICAC inquiry has shown what charade donations have made of any sense of an open and honest public discourse. We need to consider the banning of all donations at both national and state levels. Our political system is being bought by wealthy vested interests.

    Think Tanks

    Think tanks should be providing us with independent and public advice on important public issues. But the most influential ‘think tank’ is the Institute of Public Affairs, which is secretly funded by wealthy companies like big tobacco and the mining sector. It runs phoney campaigns in service of wealthy private and secret funders. The Sydney Institute pretends that it is an independent forum, but never discloses the sources of its funding. These ‘think tanks’ that refuse to disclose their donors should be refused media access, certainly by the ABC, and denied tax deductibility for donations. If we are to have an honest and transparent public debate action must be taken against these phoney think tanks.

    Business Economists

    Most of the business economists that we see so regularly on TV or read in our newspapers are employed by the banks. The 19 member Committee of Australian Business Economists is dominated by bank and financial service employees. Some of these business economists make an important contribution to public debate on broad economic issues, but how often do they challenge the power of their employers who increasingly dominate our economy, particularly in the fast-growing area of superannuation and funds management.

    We used to have a number of independent “public intellectuals” usually from the universities. But with the exception of a few university people such as Professor Ross Garnaut, Professor Bob Gregory and Ian McAuley, these public commentators are few.

    With a few notable exceptions our climate scientists are remarkably tongue tired in the face of so much self-interest and crude ideology. Don’t they care about climate change? Do they feel that politics is beneath them?

    Dubious ‘contributors’ to this public debate are the large number of accounting and consulting firms who undertake ‘modelling’ to produce what their clients want. I am not sure how professional and independent some of this modelling is. Ross Gittins has described the problem of recent modelling on the effect on electricity prices if the Renewable Energy Target is abolished. He said ‘regrettably economic modelling has degenerated into a device for bamboozling the public’

    Leadership

    A key to the earlier periods of policy reform was political leadership supported broadly by business and the trade unions. I do think that we respond to strong leadership if we feel that the sacrifice is worth it in the national interest and that it is fair. Unfortunately today we so often have a lack of leadership and a partisan and coarse public dialogue.

    Strong and capable leaders will help to outflank the obstacles I have mentioned. But the obstacles are major reasons why complacency is winning the day.

    We are still enjoying the benefits of the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. Can we shake ourselves free of our complacency and partisanship and stop fooling ourselves that ‘she’ll be right’.

  • Tessa Morris-Suzuki. The CIA and the Japanese media: a cautionary tale.

    When Japan surrendered at the end of the Pacific War, the occupation authorities pledged to democratise the country. They carried out many reforms and introduced a new peace constitution, guaranteeing human rights and freedom of expression. The reforms had a profound and lasting effect, but there was also a less democratic side to US-Japan relations in the immediate postwar era.

    It has long been known that the occupation authorities chose to retain media censorship for their own purposes. But new dimensions of US media manipulation in postwar Japan have come to light in a large number of CIA documents declassified over recent years.

    Today, the Japanese media is riven by fierce infighting, as key national newspapers swing their weight behind the current Japanese government’s campaigns to rewrite history and reopen nuclear power stations. In this context, the information revealed in the CIA files has disturbing contemporary relevance.

    The declassified documents on Japan are now available online (http://www.foia.cia.gov/). One person who figures prominently in their pages is Ogata Taketora, Deputy Prime Minister in the Yoshida government of the early 1950s. Ogata began his prewar career as a journalist with the Asahi newspaper. But when Japanese freedom of speech crumbled in the face of political repression, Ogata joined the government, becoming head of Japan’s wartime intelligence bureau. He was purged during the occupation, but was soon depurged and elected to parliament.

    In 1954, Ogata sponsored the creation of a Japanese “Central Investigation Agency”: a private venture run by leading figures from the main Japanese news agencies. The funding came from the government, and the Agency’s main role was “feeding information to the recently-formed intra-Cabinet body, the Anti-Democratic Activities Countermeasure Council”.

    The Agency operated from the offices of Japan’s Jiji Press Agency, and its board of directors included leading figures from the two main postwar news agencies, Jiji and Kyodo.

    US intelligence documents on this media-government collaboration survive because Ogata was himself a registered high-level CIA informant, passing damaging information about his political rivals to the Americans in return for sensitive US information to use in his political battles at home.

    But Ogata was not the only important Japanese figure engaged in murky arrangements with US intelligence. Another was Shoriki Matsutaro, the immensely influential owner of the Yomiuri newspaper, who in the 1950s became head of Japan’s State Security Committee and its Nuclear Power Commission.

    Shoriki had begun his career in the prewar police, where, as a report on the CIA files notes, he gained notoriety by “his ruthless treatment of thought cases and by ordering raids on universities and colleges”. After leaving the police he took over the presidency of the bankrupt Yomiuri, revived its fortunes, and went on to be closely involved in the information policies of the wartime government.

    Investigated for war crimes, Shoriki was released without trial in 1952, and not long after began what was to be a new and covert element in his career: a role as an informant and propaganda agent for the CIA under the code-names PODAM and POJACKPOT-1. By now his empire included not only the Yomiuri, but also Japan’s first commercial TV station, Nippon TV.

    At least one other senior member of Shoriki’s business empire also seems to have been working with the CIA.

    Shoriki was particularly useful to the USA because of his enthusiastic collaboration in a propaganda campaign to persuade Japan to adopt nuclear power. By 1955, the media mogul had “committed his empire to a full blast favourable treatment of the atom, not neglecting to feature himself as the Prometheus who was bringing this fire to Japan”. Part of the campaign was a massively publicised touring “Atoms for Peace” exhibition, which Shoriki conceived and largely funded, with wholehearted CIA backing. Shoriki helpfully came up with the idea that Japanese artists could be employed to “rework” the information that the CIA provided for the exhibition “to play down or conceal [the] original source of this material”

    The exhibition was just one of a litany of clandestine connections between Japan’s leading media magnate and the CIA.

    In the run up to the 1958 general election, for example, the Yomiuri’s owner and the CIA hatched a bizarre scheme to import US colour TV sets (then the latest high-tech invention) to Japan so that they could be set up in public, ostensibly to demonstrate the new technology, but in fact to broadcast propaganda for the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. (The TV sets were shipped, but sadly arrived to late for the election).

    The relationship went well beyond Japan’s borders: in one case, Shoriki expressed willingness to send a Yomiuri correspondent to Syria so that the journalist could serve as a CIA contact there.

    Today, the Yomiuri, now Japan’s most widely sold broadsheet newspaper, is a leading participant in Japan’s media and history wars. Vocally supporting government approaches to history and to nuclear power, the newspaper presents itself as a guardian of media integrity, fiercely attacking competitors for failing to correct errors of reporting.

    But the Yomiuri’s own response to the explosive content of the CIA archives has been a deafening silence.

    The newspaper has never apologised or conducted an investigation, and has never explained how extensive this secret relationship with a foreign intelligence agency was, nor when it ended.

    Two large questions emerge from this sorry history. In how many other countries did the CIA have similar relationships with leading media moguls? And just what sort of back-door relationships between politics and the media are still at work in Japan today?

     

  • Michael Kelly SJ. Pope Francis is a game-changer.

    There’s no doubting that Pope Francis is a game changer and not just for the Catholic Church. The question remains whether he can pull off the changes he’s foreshowed and many Catholics want.

    Three decades of people being made bishops more for reasons of their readiness to comply with directives from Head Office than for any evident leadership capacities means that Papa Bergoglio as the Italians call him has little to draw on in the way of resources and personnel to see the desired changes through. And five decades of resistance by the Vatican Curia to the changes mandated at Vatican II in the early 1960s means that the challenges start at GHQ.

    But beyond the resistance and lack of resources to manage the change lies something deeper. It really comes down to a difference in what one thinks the Church is. And about that Pope Francis is quite clear.

    An image of the Church that Pope Francis has made popular is that of its being a “field hospital”, something deployed to bring healing and care to battle scarred warriors.

    He told the editor of editor of Civilta Cattolica, Fr Antonio Spadaro SJ, last year in his interview for the Jesuit magazines worldwide that “I can clearly see that what the Church needs today is the ability to heal the wounds and warm the hearts of the faithful, it needs to be on their side. I see the Church as a field hospital after a battle.

    “It’s pointless to ask a seriously injured patient whether his cholesterol or blood sugar levels are high! It’s his wounds that need to be healed. The rest we can talk about later. Now we must think about treating those wounds. And we need to start from the bottom.”

    Such practical, pastoral wisdom is born of prayerful reflection on the experience of ministry, as anyone who has ever had any and chosen to reflect on it will attest.

    But there’s also an essential and direct connection to the mission of the Church as expressed in the opening words of Vatican 2’s Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World – Gaudium et Spes: “The joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the people of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ.” (GS, 1)

    The all too familiar and contrary understanding of the Church and its mission that has prevailed in the last three decades and was embodied in Cardinal George Pell’s Royal Commission appearances in Sydney and by video link in Melbourne last month. It is that of the fortress Church, the one locked behind its defenses and giving admission only to the pure, the elect and the approved.

    It has had Church leaders speak in hushed but approving tones of the future of the Church being only to be found with the “faithful remnant”, the small number of the elect who tick all the boxes of orthodoxy and are energetic in pointing to their superiority as orthodox Catholics in contrast to the inferiority of others whom they blithely label “dissidents” or “cafeteria Catholics” or “Catholic lite”, and imply that the “non–Catholicity” of those they label thus on the basis of their measuring stick to calculate Catholicity.

    What I have found most uncongenial about being a Catholic in the last three decades is the absence of the missionary curiosity and the disappearance of any appreciation that the Church has anything to gain from a sympathetic engagement with the world beyond the Church.

    Catholicism has become self-referential – words used by Pope Francis to describe the situation of elitism and condescension most particularly evident in one of the frequent objects of his criticism: careerist clericalism.

    Self-referential used of the Church easily translate to a more commonly used English term – self-absorbed. This also had practical impacts known to us all too well in Australia, vividly illustrated throughout much of the sorry and sad history of the Church in Australia in its handling of sex abuse cases.

    It was all done behind closed doors for fear of scandal. Even more scandalous things were done to cover it up. Always, and all along, the Church’s authorities have given Joh Bjelke Petersen’s response to enquiries and calls to accountability – “don’t you worry your pretty little face about that.”

    Such an approach survived even to the days surrounding the calling of the current Royal commission. Through the bishops’ conference, most of the Archbishops and Bishops of Australia had heard in the days before its announcement that a process was underway to establish the Royal Commission.

    They wanted to be on the front foot and welcome its establishment by then Prime Minister Gillard. One stood out opposing any such gesture – Cardinal Pell. In the end, the majority prevailed and announced their welcome and Cardinal Pell had to play catch-up on the day following the announcement by the Prime Minister, offering full cooperation with the processes of the Royal Commission. (See here http://youtu.be/gmzR1X95Lxg)

    Now we know that the Church’s authorities were judged by civil society to be incapable of managing its own mess. External intervention by lay and secular judicial authorities is doing for the Church what it cannot and has not done for itself.

    While Pope Francis has not distinguished himself yet on the subject of sex abuse in the Church and, on a couple of occasions, has shown himself to be in need of being brought up to speed on the subject, I don’t think it will take too much of an imaginative leap for him to grasp the problem and authorize the relevant changes needed in the conduct of Church authorities on the issue.

    It would be worthwhile to consider, though it is entirely a conjecture on my part, how Pope Francis might have responded to the announcement of the Royal Commission. Of all the things that might have happened, two definitely would.

    He would commend rather than criticize the journalists present for their persistence in seeing justice done to the victims, recognizing, as he must, that it is only by the efforts of the Fourth Estate that the issue of child sex abuse has become visible in the Church and civil society.

    And, as he declared on many occasions, he would acknowledge that he is a sinner and has made many mistakes, on this and other issues. A bit of encouragement and humility would go a long way in this issue.

    Why do I say this? Because at a deeper level, what Pope Francis is saying is that the Church gets its bearings not from its own internal fixed points but from where its vocation is to be found – where Vatican II in general but Gaudium et Spes in particular suggested it would: in its service to a world that is hungry, thirsty, bruised and in need.

    The attitude and disposition of a servant Church that is located in the midst of multi-religious, culturally varied, politically and economically diverse world is first of all focused by something that views from windows of the Papal apartment can hardly provide: pluralism. It is something rarely acknowledged let alone allowed as the starting point for the Church’s engagement with the world it serves.

    Most Catholics in Europe, Australia and the US live in worlds that are secular, pluralistic and heterogeneous. In the wider world, Catholicism is dwarfed by the other great world religions where difference does not mean error so much as recognizing that different people can and do have divergent starting points.

    Pope Francis acknowledged this when meeting with journalists shortly after his election: See  http://youtu.be/1hPxXZJtAh8

    But the differences displayed in these two video clips is more than a difference in style. It’s also a difference in substance best described in the interview Pope Francis gave to the Jesuit magazines worldwide. Pope Francis expressed it this way to Antonio Spadaro of Civilta Cattolica about how the Church changes:

    “Human self-understanding changes with time and so also human consciousness deepens. Let us think of when slavery was accepted or the death penalty was allowed without any problem. So we grow in the understanding of the truth. Exegetes and theologians help the church to mature in her own judgment. Even the other sciences and their development help the Church in its growth in understanding. There are ecclesiastical rules and precepts that were once effective, but now they have lost value or meaning. The view of the Church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong.”

    This and much more was all described in the key documents of the Second Vatican Council that has been on the back burner for the last fifty years. In 2013, something that finished in 1965 – Vatican II – is now centre stage again.

     

  • Ian McAuley. A Year Of Tony Abbott.

     The Abbott Government was elected one year and one day ago. Ian McAuley celebrates the countless successes that have slipped under the radar.

     A year into the Abbott Government’s term we can reflect on its impressive economic achievements.

    The highlight is the repeal of the carbon tax. It’s easy to stand up against tree huggers and left‑wing romantics who prat on about global warming, but it takes political courage to stand up against scientists and economists.

    A close second has to be repeal of the mining tax. Some people refuse to understand how Australia works. For 200 years, ever since Macarthur opened up the wool trade, we have been selling raw materials for cleverer people to make into useful products.

    For a few years after 1945 we thought we could be clever ourselves and make things like cars and airplanes – even Menzies got carried away by that delusion – but thankfully that era of unreality has passed.

    The world needs a quarry and we’re in the business of providing it.  Australia can be the Saudi Arabia of the twenty‑first century.

    The Government hasn’t scrapped the Renewable Energy Target, but, with a bit of help from Dick Warburton, it has created enough uncertainty to kill this crazy scheme. Joe Hockey is right when he says windmills are ugly – they distract one’s attention from advertising billboards on the roadside.

    More seriously, all this renewable energy eats into power companies’ profits.

    Some say that Australia shouldn’t break a long‑standing bipartisan commitment on the RET because to do so increases our sovereign risk, but don’t they realize that there has never been a sovereign risk as bad as six years of a Labor Government?

    Six years when foreign investment fell to the lowest on record! (The ABS statistics on investment erroneously show high foreign mining investment mining during Labor’s term – proof if ever you needed it that you can’t trust public servants).

    Australia is open for business, but not all businesses – certainly not businesses that undermine our world‑standard coal industry.

    The cuts to science are well‑directed: $75 million from the Australian Research Council; $120 million from the Defence Science and Technology Organisation; $8 million from the Institute of Marine Science; and $111 million from the CSIRO.

    We don’t need all these boffins. The CSIRO served us well in the past when it focussed on crop yields and sheep fertility; it could serve us well in the future if it concentrates on mining research.

    One of the Government’s least‑understood achievements is reversal of most of the Future of Financial Advice changes – Labor’s meddle in the financial market, which made it hard for financial advisers to reward themselves with ongoing commissions.

    These are proper, respectable, upstanding people, not like the unionised riff‑raff who work in car plants or in companies like SPC‑Ardmona. Their jobs need support. In fact, with re‑training, unemployed scientists could find useful work in the finance sector, or in the tax avoidance salary packaging industry.

    Then there is repeal of small business tax concessions. These concessions – instant asset write‑offs and offsetting future losses against past losses – were highly favourable to new companies and to companies expanding into new ventures.

    The trouble with encouraging such businesses is that they put competitive pressure on existing businesses to improve their performance or lower their prices. That’s just not fair.

    In any case the concessions were introduced by the Labor Government – a clear indication that they were not good for the country.

    An achievement which has passed almost unnoticed is the abolition of the Australian National Preventative Health Agency. ANPHA was one of those wacky Labor nanny‑state bureaucracies, all about getting people to lead healthier lifestyles in order to take pressure off health care resources.

    Had it survived it could have moved through the health sector like a wrecking ball, putting specialists out of work, and hitting the profits of pharmaceutical firms and private health insurers.

    Worse, their first campaign was on obesity – an obvious threat not only to the bariatric surgery industry (literally one of our promising growth industries) – but also to our successful fast food chains.

    Don’t they realize that corpulence is the new chic? Public money should not be in the hands of scrawny vegetarian do‑gooders.

    Getting rid of that fibre‑to‑the‑premises National Broadband Network idea was timely – nipped in the bud before it got its own momentum. It could have spelled the end of telegram boys and could have put the telex network out of business.

    Unfortunately some of the Coalition’s most far‑reaching reforms are having a hard time in the Senate.

    One of these, the proposed changes to higher education, are truly far‑reaching. Let’s face it, there are just too many over‑educated people in this country.

    We need a few mining engineers and technicians, but we can get them on 457 visas. Our economy needs more taxi drivers, nannies, cleaners and others to attend to the worthy classes.

    The Coalition is having a hard time putting to rest Labor’s highfalutin idea that Australia could become an internationally competitive industrialised country. It’s hard to put down a stupid idea like that.

    People just don’t understand the Coalition’s education and labour market policies. We need people who can read and write if they’re going to operate a mining truck or work in the market gardens of our northern food bowl. But take education too far and people become sceptical and start thinking critically.

    It’s dangerous in a democracy if people think too much for themselves. Our state education system should take people to the level that they can read Sydney’s Telegraph or Adelaide’s Advertiser, but no further.

    Our private schools can teach higher‑order skills, such as negotiating with a BMW dealer or getting a coal loader proposal past legislative roadblocks.

    Another set of blocked initiatives are the cuts to the Newstart allowance, the extension of retirement age to 70, and the reductions in the Age Pension.

    These are all designed to get people into the workforce. Some armchair economists say there aren’t enough jobs, particularly not enough unskilled jobs, but they don’t see the vision in the policy.

    It’s intended to put supply‑side pressure on the minimum wage. If Australia can get rid of the minimum wage we can have a labour market more like America’s – a tremendously successful economy to emulate.

    If only people would stop whingeing about unfairness in the Government’s Budget measures. There’s nothing wrong with giving a leg‑up to those who have done well.

    The rich wouldn’t be rich unless they were competent and deserving. The poor blow their money on things like rent, food and fuel: it’s the rich who invest and create jobs for the less deserving.

    That was the essence of President Reagan’s successful “supply side” economics, a policy which has generally been followed by both Democratic and Republican administrations. OK – there has been a little collateral damage, like the GFC, but give America’s business‑friendly policies time and it will all come good.

    About the only economic idea the Coalition has wrong is the plan to re‑introduce fuel tax indexation, sensibly dropped by the Howard Government in 2001.

    There’s plenty of oil in the world, and one of life’s few remaining pleasures in a country where the nanny state has encroached on almost all our freedoms is to hoon around in a hotted‑up V8 ute, topping it off with a drag race and a burnout.

    That’s the freedom our diggers fought for when they thrashed the Turks at Gallipoli. Thankfully the Greens have the good sense to block this proposal.

    And lest readers believe this contribution to be partisan, I should give credit to the Rudd‑Gillard Government for their demonstrated commitment to cutting taxes.

    Out of the most prosperous 18 OECD countries, only the USA has lower taxes than Australia. That’s some achievement.

    While high‑tax countries like Germany have wasted money on schools, universities, public transport, fast trains, and autobahns, we have wisely made sure the government hasn’t crowded out productive private sector investments, such as casinos and dinosaur parks.

    Perhaps the Coalition’s greatest economic achievement, however, has been to convince the electorate of its economic competence.

    The Essential opinion poll shows they are well ahead of Labor on the question “which party – Labor or Liberal – do you think is best when it comes to handling the economy well?”

    Labor scores only 23 per cent, while the Liberal Party scores 37 per cent.

    Not all credit for this score goes to the Government, however, for Labor still seems to be reluctant to engage with the community on economic policy.

    This article by Ian McAuley was published in New Matilda on Sunday, 7 September 2014.

  • Clare Condon SGS. Sanctioned Violence: What does it do to our society and relationships?

    Some violent acts, depending on where and how they were perpetrated, are regarded as criminal. Others, however, are sanctioned by society, even applauded and cheered. Some are blatant; others are covert and subtle. Some are justified by cultural norms, by the blind eye or the deaf ear; they happen behind closed doors. Others are justified by official permission and approval, or even by public opinion.

    I wish to highlight four areas of sanctioned violence which I believe impact adversely on society and relationships. 

    Australia’s response to asylum seekers and refugees

    Currently in the Australian community, the government is justifying the use of violence to stop the smuggling of asylum seekers. This inhumane approach has bipartisan political support; it is driven by public opinion and generated by the politics of the fear of the stranger. The government’s actions are hidden from the public’s eye through secrecy and by holding people in detention in remote areas of Australia, or offshore in developing countries, such as Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.

    The government’s often-used mantra “Stop the boats” demonises desperate people fleeing violence and persecution. By using emotive language, this policy is justified in a subtle but no less sanctioned form of violence towards humans. In letters from the government justifying this behaviour, people seeking refugee protection have been called “illegal maritime arrivals”. Their identity as humans has been expunged.

    Such demonisation sanitizes the reality for the Australian public. As a consequence, our societal and racial relationships are diminished and subtly eroded. We can begin to believe that some humans are more worthy than others, and that such actions are justified and normal, when in fact the government of the nation is engaged in sanctioned violence.

    Children are being held in detention centres. ..These children are exposed to brutal, negative and neglectful modelling. The consequences of such detention are likely to breed a dissociative reality for these children, leading to a spiral of hatred and evil within their own life experiences.

    As citizens we must ask: what behaviour do we propose for the future human development and relationships for these innocent children? Is society encouraged to be vindictive, self-serving, aggressive in all its relationships with anyone who is identified as a stranger, rather than a society which is welcoming, other-centred, and compassionate, respecting the dignity of the other in those relationships? One response from the government stated it would not be involved in “misguided compassion”. True compassion is a strong virtue. It is the antithesis of violence. There is nothing weak and soft about a well-guided compassionate response. 

    Sanctioned violence in sport

    Sport is a feature of a nation’s life and culture, especially in Australia. It has an essential role to play in a healthy society. Violence on the playing field and amongst spectators not only sets a bad example to impressionable young people, it is destructive of basic civil relationships. It can instil fear and anxiety, especially in children. . There are significant vested interests to subvert any attempt to study the area in a serious manner.

    It seems that violence in contact sports has increased. I suspect that the introduction of high monetary stakes, as well as sports betting, has influenced this increase. Do the normal expectations of civil behaviour cease once players step onto the field? Does the constant replay of violence and thuggery seek to justify this behaviour?

    One is not a ‘real man’ unless he is like these highly paid, macho stars. Is it not time for some extensive research on the facts and some community discussion on the type of role modelling that sport ought to be portraying to young people, and what kind of relationships society might expect to support and sustain in an advanced civil democratic society? 

    Domestic violence – the hidden nightmare for many women and children

    You might think it odd that I have placed violence in sport before one of the most hidden and often sanctioned – violence of the household or domestic violence – which impacts mostly on women and children. It is often hidden, excused and justified from a male perspective. The macho image often promoted by sport can become the macho image for some men in their daily behaviour. Are they connected?

    Australian research[1] indicates that: 17% of women aged 18 and over have experienced sexual assault since the age of 15; 87% have a relationship with the perpetrator; only 1 in 7 who experienced violence from an intimate partner had reported the most recent incident to police; women with an intellectual disability are 90% more likely to be subjected to a sexual assault than women in the general population.[2] Between 2010-11 and 2012-13, there was a 29% increase in the number of children who were subjects of substantiations of sexual abuse, thereby reversing previous downward trends.[3] Most of these are from the lowest socio-economic areas.

    These statistics are chilling. Domestic violence often leads to homelessness, further abuse of children, significant health issues for the woman and her children, ongoing economic hardship, unemployment, and social, psychological and family isolation. Thus, the capacity for building strong, healthy and mutual relationships in the future is undermined and damaged severely.

    Does media violence have an impact on human behaviour?

    There would be some who would say the jury is still out. Conflict is what makes a good story! Violence has always been part of the movie world, but now violence in movies, TV shows and electronic games has become the norm. They are louder, bloodier and more vicious. Some US research suggests that by the time a child is 18, he or she has watched some 200,000[4] acts of violence.

    There have been hundreds of reports with diverse views on the impact of media violence, particularly on children. However, there is reasonable consensus that long exposure of children to violence portrayed in the mass media leads to long-term aggressive behaviour.[5]

    My concern is the impact sanctioned violence has on society and our relationships. Some of the consequences can be corrosive and long-term. Where violence is sanctioned and regarded as acceptable and routine, then societal norms are being established for the future. Such acts become embedded in the cultural fabric of society.

    If it is acceptable for a government to treat strangers in a cruel and demeaning manner, then it becomes acceptable for the citizen to treat the stranger in a similar manner. If it is acceptable to use excessive violence on a sports field, then why not off the field in school yards? If it is acceptable to exercise violence in the private space of home, then why not on the streets? If it is acceptable to spend hours watching real or virtual violence on a screen, why not activate the same violence in ordinary relationships?

    My congregation of religious women follows the fifth-century rule of St Benedict, a way of life which helped to civilise Europe after generations of wars. Benedict’s dictum for his followers was that all should be structured so “that the strong have something to strive for and that the weak have nothing to run from”.[6]

    In those areas of our society where violence is sanctioned, we citizens need to actively participate in social engagement and collective action. We need to say no more, we can do much better. “Compassion is the very final possibility for saving the human person in his or her naked existence in the face of the direct negation of this existence”.[7]

    This is an edited version of an address delivered by Sister Clare Condon SGS at the Australian Human Right Commission https://www.humanrights.gov.au on August 13, 2014.

    Sister Clare Condon is the Congregational Leader of the Sisters of the Good Samaritan of the Order of St Benedict, Australia’s first ‘home-grown’ congregation of Catholic Religious women www.goodsams.org.au


    [1] Cindy Tarczon and Antonia Quadara, The Nature and Extent of Sexual Assault and Abuse in Australia, December 2012, The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html

    [2] CASA Forum 2014 Victorian Centres Against Sexual Assault

    [3] The Child Protection Australia Report 2012-13 of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

    [4] American Academy of Paediatrics, Media Violence, 19 October 2009 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/5/1495.full

    [5] The Australian Psychological Society in 2013 updated its report: Media Representations and Responsibilities: Psychological Perspectives

    [6] Rule of Benedict, Chapter 64:19

    [7] Walter Kasper, Mercy, Paulist Press, New Jersey, 2013, p.29

     

     

  • John Menadue. Overplaying one’s hand.

    With the benefits that governments get with incumbency, presidents and prime ministers need to be careful not to overstate their case or overplay their hands. The temptation is great, particularly when there are national outpourings of grief and when a global stage awaits.

    Tony Abbott was certainly on the world stage over MH370. On 21 March in PNG he announced that “satellite footage showed what could be debris from the missing airline’s flight MH370”. Then he added, ‘now it could just be a container that fell off a ship … we just don’t know … we owe it to [families and friends] to give them information as soon as it is to hand’.

    His speculation about the wreckage was not correct.

    On April 11 in Shanghai, Tony Abbott said ‘We are confident that we know the position of the black box flight recorders to within some kilometres … we are very confident the signals we are detecting are from the black boxes on MH370.’ On the same day, after Tony Abbott’s press conference, Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston, who was in charge of the search said ‘On the information that I have available to me, there has been no major breakthrough in the search for MH370’. The media reported in the SMH of that day ‘[Angus Houston] gave no indication that the black boxes were any closer to being found’.

    Tony Abbott was too early and overstated in his comments.

    On MH17, Tony Abbott and July Bishop have been playing on a much bigger stage in the United Nations. (Interestingly their platform was the Security Council seat that they inherited from the previous government despite the fact that the Coalition criticised the waste of money and that time should not be wasted in talking to Africans.)

    The unanimous decision of the Security Council drew world attention to the shooting down of MH17 with 37Australians and Australian residents on board. We had a direct and legitimate interest. But that Security Council Resolution 2168 on MH17 had no enforcement mechanism for the recovery of the bodies and the necessary investigations. The lack of any enforcement mechanism is now the reason why our AFP and others, particularly the Dutch and Malaysians, have been unable to access the crash site for days. And it seems that the reason for that denial of access is not because of Russian supported separatists, but because the Ukrainian government has seized the opportunity to escalate its military actions against the separatists. This action by the Ukrainian government seems to be a clear defiance of the Security Council Resolution.

    There are clear lessons to be learnt from the disasters of MH370 and MH17. The lessons are don’t overplay your hand or overstate your case for domestic political reasons.

    Tabloid headlines from the Murdoch media are not a good guide as to how we should conduct our foreign policy.

  • Take your pick on the way News Corp operates.

    On oath before the Leveson Enquiry, Rupert Murdoch said “I’ve never asked a prime minister for anything’. (Leveson transcript 25 April 2012)

    In his book ‘The Whitlam Government 1972-75’, published in 1985, Gough Whitlam says

    ‘ … in the week after the 1972 election, Menadue, who had become my private secretary at the beginning of 1960 and had then become Murdoch’s financial manager in mid-1967, saw me on Murdoch’s behalf to put the proposition that Murdoch should become High Commissioner in London. Murdoch was confident that there could be no conflict of interest, since he would put his British interests in trust and there would be no public outcry since the media proprietors would not oppose the appointment of one of themselves.’ (p.581)

    In my book ‘Things you learn along the way’ published in 1999, I said

    ‘Murdoch certainly believed that he had played a major part in the 1972 election result and that something was due to him. What he asked for was that he be appointed as Australian High Commissioner to London … Murdoch raised the appointment with me and explained that if he was the High Commissioner he would put his newspaper and television interests in trust so that there would not be a conflict of interest. He believed also that he could influence other Australian media proprietors and avoid medial flak for the new government over the appointment. He has since denied that the sought the High Commissioner’s job. … But Whitlam was adamant about Rupert for London. “No way” he said.’ (p.113)

    He boasted way back in 1997 “I bet if I was going to be shot at dawn, I could get out of it.” (Shawcross, Rupert Murdoch, The Making of a Media Empire p62/3)

    On his latest trip to Australia Murdoch gave us the benefit of his well-researched and in depth  understanding on climate change…”we should not be building windmills and all that rubbish” and to meet rising sea levels. “we have to stop building vast houses on the seashore”   His loyal employee and interviewer, Paul Kelly, did not even blink.

     

  • Chris Mitchell, The Australian and Iraq

    As part of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of The Australian, the editor, Chris Mitchell, revealed on Monday 14 July that he was a secret opponent of the invasion of Iraq. This will come as a surprise for many who followed The Australian’s wholehearted support of the Iraq invasion and hectored and criticised those who opposed it.

    In The Monthly magazine yesterday, Robert Manne tells us about this remarkable confession by Chris Mitchell. See Monthly link below.  John Menadue.

     

    http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/robert-manne/2014/07/14/1405315103/chris-mitchell-australian-and-iraq

  • Rod Tiffen. ‘The Australian’ and tobacco consumption.

    As the Australian approaches its 50th anniversary amid much self-congratulation, an insight into its editorial standards and how it conducts itself in controversies is provided by its recent reporting of competing claims over tobacco consumption.

    Tobacco is still the largest preventable source of premature death in the world.

    Despite the scale of its damage the Australian’s owner Rupert Murdoch has always had a curious attachment to the tobacco industry.  He was on the Philip Morris Board for a decade, and members of that company have often been on the News Corp Board.  Internal Philip Morris documents in the US described him as sympathetic to their position and his newspapers as ‘our natural allies’ and noted that his papers rarely publish anti-smoking articles.

    The fight to reduce the problems caused by tobacco has been a great policy success in Australia.  While around 37 per cent of the adult population (15+) smoked cigarettes daily in 1970, only around 16 per cent do now, and the decreases in per capita tobacco consumption have been even more dramatic, now around one third of their 1970 levels.

    There have been three strands to achieving this reduction.  The first has been public education….  The second has been raising the price of cigarettes…  The third has been legislation restricting areas where people can smoke, and importantly the ability of the industry to advertise its product, to give smoking a ‘cool’ image.  This was gradually extended from advertising on radio and television to print advertising to event sponsorship.

    The latest such measure came when under the Labor Government, led by Health Minister Nicola Roxon, Australia became the first country in the world to mandate that cigarettes could only be sold in uniform plain paper packaging, a move aimed at making young people less likely to take up smoking.

    It is interesting to note that before the enactment there were several scare campaigns by the tobacco lobby.  Tim Wilson, of the Institute of Public Affairs, which is reported to receive funding from the industry, said that the legislation could cost Australian taxpayers $3 billion in lawsuits over the intellectual property surrounding cigarette packaging.  The sum at the moment is closer to zero.

    On June 6, in a front page ‘exclusive’ by Christian Kerr was headlined ‘Evidence “World’s Toughest Anti-Smoking Laws” not working’/Labor’s Plain Packaging Fails as cigarette sales rise’.  It began ‘Labor’s nanny state push to kill off the country’s addiction to cigarettes with plain packaging has backfired, with new sales figures showing tobacco consumption growing during the first full year of the new laws.’  A supporting editorial began ‘Suck it up nanny, plain cigarette packs have not cut smoking.’  Columnist Judith Sloan followed up ‘The nannies are panicking’, and referred to ‘Head Nanny, Nicola Roxon’.  Henry Ergas similarly began ‘Not every nanny encourages her charges to take up alcohol and tobacco, but then again not every health minister is like Nicola Roxon.’

    The one piece of hard evidence in the original article is an industry survey commissioned by the tobacco industry to be used in lobbying against the introduction of similar laws in Britain.  More problematic than the provenance of the data is that the company was only prepared to release selective snippets, which makes it difficult to evaluate its overall worth and meaning.  The industry claim that smoking sales had increased was fleshed out with anecdotal evidence.  Except for a one paragraph ritual denial from the Labor shadow minister all the examples went in the one direction, that the policy was having no effect.  The owner of a convenience store, for example, was cited, but no public health experts.  A later story quoted a ‘proud’ Brisbane smoker saying the policy had had no effect on her.

    It is especially notable that the newspaper did not cross-check its industry data with any official data sources.  Others soon filled the gap.  The blog by leading economic analyst, Stephen Koukoulas, ‘the Kouk’, challenged the story by using Australian Bureau of Statistics National Accounts figures which indicated a decline in smoking over the calendar year 2013.

    A much bigger reaction followed Paul Barry’s dissection on the ABC TV’s Media Watch on June 16.  Skewered yet again by its arch-enemy, the Australian reacted vigorously.  It ran five stories on the topic the following Wednesday.  In the subsequent week or so, there were two editorials, a couple of references in ‘Cut and Paste’, and several news stories and commentary columns. Such huge attention was clearly more due to bruised editorial egos than to audience interest.  The coverage offers an instructive guide to how the Australian conducts controversies about itself.

    In this tobacco controversy legal affairs editor Chris Merritt criticised Media Watch for not disclosing that Stephen Koukoulas had worked on Julia Gillard’s staff for 10 months, and using Professor Mike Daube who had been a member of the government panel that recommended plain packaging laws.  Daube is an eminent authority on public health, while Koukoulas was a senior member of the Treasury for many years, and is a leading economist.  But red trumps expert in the eyes of the Australian.  Conversely the paper did not indicate that two of its staff working on the story – Christian Kerr and Adam Creighton – had worked for the Liberal Party, while one of its experts, Sinclair Davidson, had links to the Institute for Public Affairs, which is supported by the tobacco industry.

    The newspaper then wheeled out its three favourite academics – Judith Sloan, Henry Ergas and Sinclair Davidson – in its defence.  All three got the basic facts wrong.  Davidson asserted that ‘I have no doubt that the consumption of cigarettes has risen since plain packaging was introduced; we just can’t be sure whether it is by existing smokers or new smokers’.  Sloan repeated this claim.  Ergas claims that Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows tobacco consumption increased by 2.5 per cent in volume terms in the year immediately after the introduction of plain packaging.

    In fact, the statistical evidence is fairly clear, and in the other direction.  According to Media Watch the industry admits that the number of smokers fell in 2013 by 1.4%, and also that the number of cigarettes smoked per person fell by 1.4%.  Alan Austin gives the quarterly figures on household expenditure on tobacco consumption for nine quarters from March 2012 to March 2014.  Each quarter in 2013 was below its 2012 equivalent except for the December quarter.  Then there was a sharp fall in the March 2014 quarter.  Later Treasury data was released, and it advised that ‘tobacco clearances’ fell by 3.4 per cent in 2013 compared with 2012.  Clearances are an indicator of tobacco volumes in the Australian market.’

    The one exception to this consistent picture of declining consumption – and the one that the newspaper’s commentators have seized on without giving its context – is a spike in the last quarter of 2012.  This was almost certainly due to the anticipation by retailers and some customers of the large customs rise which was scheduled to occur in December.  Predictably this momentary increase was followed by a large decrease in the next quarter.

    The other figure used in several reports is a trend towards increased sales at the cheap end of the market.  But this is not inconsistent with a decline in aggregate sales.  Cheaper cigarettes now command a larger share of a shrinking market.  Their growth has been more than cancelled out by the decline in the more premium brands, no doubt to the chagrin of the tobacco companies.

    All three of the Australian’s columnists based their commentary on a false reading of the data.

    The paper’s economics correspondent, Adam Creighton (19-6-2014) argued that the data ‘do not discredit the Australian’s claim the policy might have contributed to rising sales of cigarettes.’  Actually, there was no ‘might’ in headlines such as ‘Plain fact: more people smoking’.  He also still believed that ‘as of now there is no evidence to refute the industry’s claims of a rise in the number of cigarettes being smoked …’

    What would a reader relying solely on the Australian know after all this coverage?  They would not have a clear idea of what the paper’s critics had been saying, or why they were saying it. They would not know that the AMA and Cancer Council had criticised the paper’s coverage as misleading.  They would probably think that tobacco consumption had increased rather than decreased.  They would not have had a clear and unvarnished account of the official statistics, or where the weight of the evidence lies.

    One cannot help thinking that the Australian in 1964 would have covered the tobacco story more competently than did the Australian in 2014.

    Rod Tiffen is the Emeritus Professor, Government and International Relations, University of Sydney. The above are extracts from a paper which will shortly be published by Inside Story.

  • Pearls and Irritations –over 2,100 daily readers

    This blog was launched in January 2013.

    Daily figures for June 2014 were:

    • 2,108 views/reads
    • 5,896 pages read
    • 12,652 daily “hits”

    Monthly figures for June were:

    • 63,266 views/reads
    • 176,894 pages read
    • 379,587 “hits” for the month.

    There are 2,952 subscribers.

    Thank you for your support.

    Please spread the word.

    John Menadue

  • Michiya Matsuoka. Japanese collective ‘atmosphere’ and the power of the media.

    In John Menadue’s blog of 31 March, 2014, he expressed strong concern for recent events concerning Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, and warned that Japan was fast approaching a nationalistic agenda and revisionist view of history. (See re-post today)

    I have these same misgivings about Japan and fully agree with John Menadue’s concern, including the role and responsibility of NHK (the Japanese public broadcaster similar to the Australian ABC and British BBC).

    Although NHK is an independent corporation, its annual budget is subject to review and approval by the Diet.

    A twelve member Board of Governors oversees NHK and makes final decisions. Under the Board of Governors, NHK is managed on a full-time basis by an Executive Board.  The new Director General of the Executive Board is Katsuto Momii, a very close friend of Prime Minister Abe.  Abe also appointed another four members of the Board of Governors.

    On Katsuto Momii’s first day as Director General, 25th January 2014, he asked all members of the Executive Board to submit “a resignation paper with signature and without date” – which they did. In April, Momii withdrew the resignation papers following criticism by the public.  At the press conference on the same day, Momii said it was his personal view that the recruitment of comfort women during WWII was not a problem. He also said that current members of the Executive Board were appointed by the former Director General – and as the new Director General, he would do things in his own way.

    In February, Naoki Hyakuta, a new member of the Board of Governors close to PM Abe, spoke in support of a candidate for governor of Tokyo Metropolitan, the ex-Chief of Staff of the Air Self Defence Force. Hyakuta has been reported as saying that the Tokyo War Crimes Trial was designed to “fool people”.

    Another new member of the NHK Board of Governors, Ms Michiyo Hasegawa, a philosopher and University Professor Emeritus, whilst claiming that the public broadcaster is politically neutral, wrote an article praising a right-wing activist who committed suicide. She also attracted public dispute in January this year saying “Women’s most important job is to give birth and raise children. Women should prioritise children more than actively working outside”.

    The new Director General and members of the NHK Board of Governors are known to share PM Abe’s views on amending the Constitution, his interpretation of history and his visit to Yasukuni Shrine – among other things.

    As a citizen, I am extremely worried that NHK, the most influential public media outlet which should be politically neutral, might be leading Japan in the wrong direction.

    Why do these new members continue to speak out and take actions that do not respect NHK’s essential political neutrality? Why did all the members of the NHK Executive Board submit their resignation papers to the newly-appointed Director General Momii, without hesitation?

    We can find a key to answering these questions in a book widely read in Japan for nearly half a century.  In 1977 Shichihei Yamamoto, a prolific Japanese writer, wrote “’Kuuki’ no Kenkyuu”, usually translated as ‘The Study of the Atmosphere’ – where ‘kuuki’ or ‘atmosphere’ refers to a collective socialised mentality that Japanese people are said to feel or share without actually questioning its basis. Yamamoto pointed out that this ‘atmosphere’ is created by leaders and has the power to lead people as a group in a particular direction without any logic or contention.  I believe many Japanese people tend to make decisions influenced by this ‘atmosphere’ without thinking logically or accepting scientific data – especially if they belong to influential groups or organisations. Yamomoto’s thesis is that ‘atmosphere’ allows overwhelming emotions and group pressure to transcend logical behaviour.

    NHK’s series of incidents may well be the result of ‘atmosphere’, created by PM Abe, who has the power and authority, supported by the majority of Diet seats and the support of his Cabinet (51% as of April 2014).

    I am very concerned that NHK, managed and overseen by Director General Momii and other PM Abe supporters, will take us in a dangerous direction.  Influenced by NHK, the largest public media outlet, the Japanese people may be caught up in Abe’s ‘atmosphere’ and become incited towards war.

     

    Michiya Matsuoka is a former executive of a major advertising agency in Japan. He was also CEO of the agency in Australia from 1989 to 1993 after nine years in New York.

  • John Menadue.The vendetta against the ABC and the cost to Australia

    Tony Abbott’s vendetta against the ABC is prejudicing Australia’s regional diplomacy.

    The ABC is the most trusted media organisation in the country but Tony Abbott wants to bring it to heel. He has grown used to the fawning Murdoch media.

    According to Essential Research, 70% of Australians have a lot of or some trust in ABC TV news and current affairs. For commercial news and current affairs, it is 38%; for news and opinion in daily newspapers it is 48% and for commercial TV news and current affairs it is 41%.

    In his attacks on the ABC, Tony Abbott has become quite brazen, suggesting even that the ABC is unpatriotic.

    In the recent budget ABC funding has been cut by $29 million p.a. But the real attack on the ABC was the decision to axe the $223 million contract which the ABC has to produce and broadcast Australia Network which Australia needs to project itself into the region.

    The cutback to Australia Network will not only damage our projection into the region but it will also prejudice the ABC’s already limited number of correspondents in Asia, even though the ABC’s coverage and performance in Asia is superior to other media.

    The Coalition made it clear in advance that it would axe the Australia Network. It was pay-back for the ABC even though the ABC has seven years to run on the contract.

    Yet this axing came within weeks of the ABC signing a contract with the Shanghai Media Group to broadcast Australia Network throughout China. Only CNN and BBC have been able to negotiate such an arrangement. Rupert Murdoch tried for years to get a foothold in China but not surprisingly he failed ignominiously.

    Malcolm Turnbull, the Minister for Communications, to whom the ABC is responsible, did not effectively defend the ABC. Julia Bishop the Minister for Foreign Affairs won the day.

    It is noteworthy that during Tony Abbott’s recent visit to China we were told by the embedded Canberra Gallery journalists who travelled with him that the ABC had been able to secure this arrangement in China because of the good relations that Tony Abbott had forged with China. There must be some red faces in the Canberra Gallery to now see what’s happened to the ABC in China.

    I have no doubt that the ABC is better equipped than any other media organisation to undertake this soft diplomacy in China and generally in our region. But close observers would conclude that Australia Network’s performance has been quite ordinary. It cannot be compared with the successful projection of the UK through the BBC World Service. The ABC’s performance in Asia reflects the derivative nature of all our media. Our media still perform as is if we are an island parked off London and New York.  Not one member of the eight-person ABC Board has lived or worked in Asia. Only one out of the eleven senior ABC executives has worked in Asia.

    The very ordinary performance of the Australia Network is not surprising. It has not had leadership that understands and knows about our own region. ‘Soft diplomacy’ requires a close knowledge of the nuances and sophistication of the people of our region. The ABC, along with other media in Australia, is not sensitive or seriously interested in our region. Domestic trivia invariably wins the day.

    The botched tender process and the performance of Australia Network have not helped the ABC’s case. But even allowing for that, Australia’s interests would be better served if the government had not pursued its continuing vendetta against the ABC and allowed our national broadcaster to continue and to develop its services into China and into our region.

  • Peter Menadue. Should corporations have political rights?

     

    There is an old legal saying that a corporation has no body to be burnt or soul to be damned.  In other words, it is just a legal fiction designed to confer limited liability upon its shareholders.

    Despite that, there is an insidious and very dangerous notion abroad that corporations have political rights and should be allowed to make political donations and engage in political advertising.  That notion is a terrible threat to the health of our democracy.

    The United States Supreme Court recently gave that idea a massive boost in the Citizens United case, when it decided (5-4) that the First Amendment right of free speech allowed corporations to engage in as much political advertising as they liked. In dissent, Justice Paul Stevens, one of the great justices in the history of the court, wrote that the First Amendment did not protect corporations.  He said that corporations were not “We the People” for whom the Constitution was established.  Rather corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. Stevens called corporate spending “more transactional than ideological”.

    In Australia, we have recently seen what happens when corporations are allowed to engage in such transactional politics.  When the Rudd government tried to introduce a mining tax, major corporations (mainly foreign owned) funnelled huge sums into an advertising campaign to force the government to back down – which it did.

    Corporations must be pushed out of our political system and denied any political rights.  They should not be allowed to use their balance sheet to either make political donations or engage in political advertising.  Only citizens (including, of course, those who are employees or shareholders of corporations) should be allowed to do either.  Further, there should be a cap on how much individual citizens can spend (say $1,000 a year).  Indeed, one option is for the government to give each citizen a political donation voucher which he or she can direct to the party of his or her choice.

    However, that does not mean there will be no role at all for business organisations (like the Mining Council), trade unions or even corporations.  They should be allowed to collect money from citizens (up to the prescribed limit) on behalf of political parties.  However, all donors must be identified (to ensure they are citizens).  That would mean that, to fund its attacks on the Rudd Government, the Mining Council would have had to attract contributions from individual citizens (presumably in the mining community) who felt strongly enough about the issue. My guess is that the money collected wouldn’t have bought the council a 3am advertising slot on a regional TV station.  However then, at least, the citizenry would have spoken through their wallets, not major foreign-owned multinationals.

    The next time a progressive party takes power in Canberra,  the very first item on its agenda should be amending our electoral laws to exclude corporations from politics and to cap donations.  If it doesn’t, it might as well throw away the rest of its agenda.

  • A last hurrah from Graham Freudenberg on his 80th birthday

    May Day 2014 – fittingly the day of Neville Wran’s memorial service at Sydney Town Hall – may well turn out to be the day when the Labor Party began to see its way ahead.  Not because of the event itself, although it certainly was a marvellous celebration of a great Labor era.  But it was the day of the Shepherd Audit Report. It also happened to be the day when News Ltd bared its fangs and reminded the Abbott Government just who was calling the tune. I invite students of history to file away the Sydney Daily Telegraph on 1 May 2014 and its coverage of the Shepherd Audit next day. All its hatred of Labor was as feral as ever, but in page after page, the message to Abbott and Co was clear:

    “It was us wot done it last year and we can do for you too if you don’t toe the line.”

    But what is really important for Labor is that Abbott, Hockey and Murdoch, in fomenting this spurious crisis that is supposed to engulf Australia sometime in 2024 or 2034 have drawn up clear policy and political battle lines for the rest of the decade. They are surprisingly traditional lines along the distribution of wealth and the concentration of power, but they provide a basis for the restoration of a coherent two-party system, the mainstay of our parliamentary democracy.  After the first week of May 2014, let us have none of this nonsense that there is no real difference between the major parties.

    For the past eight months the whole operation has been designed to entrench three myths (1) that Labor wrecked the economy with a six-year spending spree, (2) that Australia is living wildly beyond its means because of outrageous extravagance in welfare, health and education, and (3) that the ‘productive’ sector is crippled by taxes and debt.  There is a fourth myth behind all this – that the ruinous reality was covered up until the election and kept secret from everybody, including the international agencies who praised Australia’s recovery from the GFC, and even the editorial writer of the Australian Financial Review who as recently as 4 May wrote sensibly about the tasks and challenges facing ‘one of the world’s strongest economies’.

    The Daily Telegraph on 1 May itself illustrates the hypocrisy in its page 3 story headed “Hey Joe, cut here instead of taxing us”. If any of the myths were true, why then did Abbott go into the campaign with his parental leave promise, when Labor’s fratricide had already guaranteed a huge coalition win? Since the election, the News Ltd commentators have portrayed the National Disability Scheme and Gonski on education as two glaring examples of Labor’s ‘mad’ excesses. In order to prevent these becoming election issues, Abbott signed up to them, while persisting with his parental leave proposal. Yet, the Daily Telegraph’s own list of cuts Joe should make costs NDIS at $1.563 billion in 2016-17 and Gonski at $1.120 billion in 2016-17. But the Abbott paid parental leave would cost, on the Daily Telegraph’s figures, $5.684 billion in 2016-17 – more than twice the NDIS and Gonski combined.

    Of course you can do anything with figures. All these supposedly horrific projections are being bandied about without any context.  What does it actually mean to predict that programs inherited from Labor would cost an extra $700 billion in 2050?  The Federal Budget reached an astronomical 100 million pounds ($200 million) in 1939.  Fighting the Second World War cost us a shocking one million pounds a day and today we are the children and grandchildren presumably burdened by Curtin and Chifley’s extravagance.  By 1961 Arthur Calwell nearly won the election by calling for a deficit of 100 million pounds to end the intolerable unemployment level of less than 3%. Menzies denounced it as ‘wildly inflationary’ and ‘grossly irresponsible’.  When he survived by one seat, Menzies promptly announced new spending measures costing 100 million pounds – the nominal figure for the entire Federal Budget barely thirty years previously!

    The timing, circumstances and political intentions of the Shepherd Audit are guaranteed to nullify any objective economic merits it may have. Instead of a serious examination of the role of government in modern economies, it will be seen as a more sophisticated and therefore more menacing Australian version of the American Tea Party agenda.  How far Hockey’s budget will follow News Ltd instructions and the Shepherd Audit Remains to be seen. But for years the Audit will stand as a blue-print for right wing aspirations for Australia – a kind of ‘black light on the hill’. If Labor can’t unite against this, around the development of new programs for growth and fair shares, and in defence of its fundamental achievements in health, welfare (including superannuation) and education, it won’t deserve to survive as the chief standard bearer of the progressive, liberal and egalitarian cause in Australia.

     

    Graham Freudenberg AM (born 1934) is an Australian author and political speechwriter who worked in the Australian Labor Party for over forty years. He has written over a thousand speeches for several leaders of the Australian Labor Party at the NSW state and the federal level. These have included Arthur Calwell, Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, Neville Wran, Barrie Unsworth, Bob Carr and Simon Crean.  In 1990 he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in recognition of his service to journalism, to parliament and to politics.  In 2005 he was inducted as a life member of the NSW ALP.

    He is the author of four books to date:  A Certain Grandeur – Gough Whitlam in Politics, Penguin 1977;  A Cause for Power – the Centenary History of the NSW Labor Party, Australian Labor Party, 1991;  A Figure of Speech (autobiography), John Wiley & Sons Australia, 2005; and Churchill and Australia, Pan Macmillan, 2008.  

  • Walter Hamilton. Yasukuni Shrine and why it matters.

    Yasukuni–Japan’s Patriotic Lightning Rod

    The Shinto shrine known as Yasukuni sprawls over ten hectares in the centre of Tokyo near the northern edge of the Imperial Palace grounds. Here are enshrined 2.47 million ‘deities’––the spirits of Japanese military personnel and civilians on war service from conflicts going back to 1853, including around 1,000 convicted war criminals. To its critics, Yasukuni is a bastion of historical revisionism, which denies that Japan waged a war of aggression between 1937 and 1945. Visits to the shrine by senior members of the government are an ongoing source of friction with China and South Korea.

    Australia has the War Memorial in Canberra; the United States has Arlington National Cemetery. Indeed every country raises monuments to remember and honour their war dead. What’s different about Yasukuni Shrine? Why the controversy?

    Yasukuni is not a cemetery, nor is it a secular monument. It is a religious institution. Prior to 1945, the shrine was a special organ of the state under the jurisdiction of the Army, Navy and Home Ministries. As ‘ritualist-in-chief’ of the Shinto religion, the god-Emperor had the final say on who could or could not be enshrined at Yasukuni. Shintoism furnished the mythologies that underpinned Emperor-worship in totalitarian Japan, such that soldiers and sailors embarking for the front, and fully expecting to die for the Emperor, would pledge to ‘meet again at Yasukuni’.

    Between 1945 and 1952, the Allied Powers set about dismantling the apparatus of Japanese militarism. The nation’s top civilian and military leaders were put on trial in Tokyo by an international tribunal (the Australian judge Sir William Webb serving as president of the court) for war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or ‘crimes against peace’ (the so-called Class ‘A’ category), which was defined as the ‘planning, preparation, initiation or waging wars of aggression’, or conspiracy to do so. Seven of these high-profile defendants were executed, including wartime leader General Hideki Tojo. Two died during the proceedings; one was declared insane; sixteen were sentenced to life imprisonment; and two others were given shorter prison terms.

    Another forty-two accused Class ‘A’ war criminals, including Nobusuke Kishi, future prime minister and grandfather of Japan’s present leader Shinzo Abe, were arrested but released without trial. After recovering its sovereignty in 1952, Japan began to reverse certain reforms of the Allied Occupation, and by 1958 all war criminals had been released from jail and politically rehabilitated.

    Yasukuni Shrine became a private religious institution in September 1946, in accordance with the principle of the separation of church and state, soon to be enshrined in Japan’s new constitution. Ten years later, however, contrary to this principle, the Ministry of Health and Welfare and Yasukuni Shrine began ‘administrative co-operation on enshrinement’, the process by which individuals were selected as kami or deities. A start was made in 1959 on the enshrinement of Class ‘B’ and ‘C’ war criminals (convicted of mistreatment of prisoners, murder of civilians, wanton destruction and atrocities). By now Prime Minister Kishi was in office. He and other conservative leaders supported the aims of such patriotic groups as the Japan War Bereaved Families Association.

    In 1966 the Ministry of Health and Welfare approved the first group of Class ‘A’ war criminals for enshrinement, but when the list went to the shrine’s head priest Fujimaro Tsukuba no action was taken. In light of subsequent events, it seems likely that the attitude of Emperor Hirohito was crucial. Tsukuba, a former marquis, was himself a member of the Imperial Family, and for as long as he remained in charge at Yasukuni no Class ‘A’ war criminals were enshrined there.

    Tsukuba died in 1978. He was succeeded by Nagayoshi Matsudaira, a former lieutenant commander in the Imperial Navy, whose father-in-law, a vice-admiral, was tried and executed by the Dutch for war crimes (and later enshrined at Yasukuni). Within three months of Matsudaira’s taking over, fourteen deceased, Class ‘A’ war criminals were secretly enshrined at Yasukuni. While its defenders may claim that Yasukuni Shrine serves no other purpose than to console the spirits of the dead and honour their sacrifices, this sequence of events shows how personal and political motives have driven its use as an instrument of national policy. ‘Even before I made up my mind [to become head priest at Yasukuni], I argued that so-called Class-A war criminals should also be venerated, as Japan’s spiritual rehabilitation would be impossible unless we rejected the Tokyo tribunal,’ Matsudaira told a magazine in 1989, as quoted by the Mainichi Shimbun.

    According to Professor Yoshinobu Higurashi of Teikyo University (whose writings on the subject have informed this blog: See http://www.nippon.com/en/authordata/higurashi-yoshinobu/) the enshrinement of the Class ‘A’ war criminals ‘cannot be attributed simply to religious or filial impulses’. It was ‘a blatantly ideological and political act driven by an urge to justify and legitimize a highly controversial chapter in Japan’s history’.

    Even though, as a signatory of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan formally agreed to the outcome of the Tokyo Trials, the nation’s conservative elite––most notably these days, Prime Minister Abe––steadfastly refuse to accept the burden of war guilt. They have a personal and public stake, through ties of blood and marriage, in overturning the verdict of history. On its English-language website, Yasukuni Shrine sets the tone by referring to ‘people who were labeled war criminals and executed after having been tried by the Allies’: in other words, victims not perpetrators. The shrine’s museum continues the narrative of denial of Japan’s atrocious wartime behaviour and, instead, strikes a note of triumphalism in its displays of armaments and trophies of battle.

    The Defense Ministry similarly promotes the idea of ‘victor’s justice’. At its compound in Tokyo where the auditorium used for the Tokyo Trials is preserved, the only reference to the court’s verdict is a display devoted to the dissenting judgement of the Indian jurist Radhabinod Pal, who would have acquitted all the accused on the basis that Japan was forced into war by hostile Western nations.

    The person best placed to know whether this dissenting view has any merit would be Emperor Hirohito. After the enshrinement of the fourteen Class ‘A’ war criminals, Emperor Hirohito made the decision never to visit Yasukuni Shrine again. No emperor has been there since. Not long before he died, according to a memorandum taken by an aide, Hirohito made clear that the two decisions were directly linked. ‘What’s on the mind of Matsudaira’s son, who is the current head priest?’ he is reported to have asked (the man’s father, Yoshitami Matsudaira, was well known to him as Imperial Household Minister during the war). ‘Matsudaira [senior] had a strong wish for peace, but the child didn’t know the parent’s heart. That’s why I have not visited the shrine since. This is my heart.’

    Having controversially escaped prosecution for his role in the war, Hirohito’s stand against the revisionists and deniers––albeit indirectly and by an act of omission––gives the lie to those, like Abe, who insist that Yasukuni can serve both as a symbol of peace and a shrine to warmongers. Could it be that Japan’s swing to the right is, as Hirohito feared, the blindness of the child who does not know the parent’s heart?

    Walter Hamilton reported from Japan for the ABC for eleven years. He is the author of Children of the Occupation: Japan’s Untold Story (NewSouth Press).

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • John Menadue. Taxes – public or private

    The Commission of Audit has recommended that a Medicare levy surcharge be applied to individuals earning more than $88,000 a year and $176,000 for families. This is designed to force high income earners to take out private health insurance. This is one of the most economically stupid and dangerous proposals that I have seen for a long time. The Commission of Audit foolishly thinks that this would reduce public taxes, but it would result in increased private taxes (premiums). Higher premiums are the inevitable result of increased reliance on private health insurance. This is what has brought disaster for healthcare in the US. Private healthcare premiums have gone through the roof and the US now has one of the worst and most expensive healthcare services in the world. 

    Furthermore, the Commission of Audit’s proposal would move us a long way towards a two-tier health system, with a high quality and very expensive healthcare service for the rich and a welfare type health service for the poor. It strikes at the heart of social solidarity and social cohesion which is essential in a good society. It would end Medicare as we know it, a high quality service available to all regardless of income.

    Below I have reposted an article of 1 February about the fallacy of assuming that public taxes are bad but private taxes (premiums) are good.

     

    It has become commonplace for opponents of government and the public sector to suggest that functions like health care and broadcasting should be moved from the public sector to the private sector in order to reduce taxes. They usually add in that the private sector is also much more efficient in performing such functions.

    There are good social and economic reasons why certain functions should remain in the public sector – defence, education and health. But there is also a great fallacy that somehow public taxes are bad and private taxes/premiums are fine.

    Let me give you two examples.

    The private health insurance industry claims that Medicare is unsustainable and that more people should take up private health insurance to reduce the demands on the public health system. The suggestion is that by doing so, governments will not have to keep increasing taxes to fund public health. But there is a fundamental error in this argument. Private health insurance (PHI) has been raising its premiums at an alarming rate and much faster than Medicare through taxation. The PHI premiums are really the same as taxes that finance Medicare, except that one is public and the other is private.

    Since 1999, when rebates for PHI were introduced, the average PHI premium (private tax) has increased 130% whilst overall prices have increased by less than 50%. These private taxes or premiums are rising dramatically for a whole range of reasons that I set out in my blog of December 26 – ‘Health insurance – here we go again’.

    The other important reason for these high private taxes/premiums by PHI is that their administrative costs, including profits, run at about 15% to 16% of total costs. For Medicare, including the cost of tax collection, administrative costs are about 6% of total costs. So with the administrative costs of PHI about three times those of Medicare it is not unreasonable to conclude that the public gets far better value for money in its taxes paid to finance Medicare than paying premiums/private taxes to PHI. Expanding the role of PHI would greatly increase the level of these private taxes. The fact that they are private taxes misses the point. They are taxes on the consumer just the same as public taxes.

    The experience of the US should also warn us about private health insurance premiums/taxes. In the US, healthcare expenditure is over 18% of GDP. It is the highest in the world. In Australia it is about 9% to 10% of GDP, as is the case for most comparable countries that have a single public insurer like Medicare. Of the 18% costs in the US( as a proportion of GDP), about 9% is due to private insurance. Private health insurance in the US has been unable to control price demands by private doctors and private hospitals. If in theory the US had a single public insurer and followed the example of other single public insurer countries like Australia, the US could reduce its health expenditure by 9% of GDP. In such a situation the 9% of GDP paid to private health insurance funds would be unnecessary. If those premiums to private insurance were then redirected into public revenue, the US budget deficit of 7% of GDP would be eliminated. I said this was theoretical and there are clearly enormous political difficulties for President Obama to wind back the mess that private health insurance has wrought. But the figures do illustrate that the US would be better off with a robust public insurer funded by taxes rather than by the grossly unfair and inefficient privatised taxes that private health insurance imposes on the community. The US experience shows quite conclusively that shifting insurance out of the government and into private health insurance would be a disaster for everyone. To finance health care through the private taxes or premiums of PHI would result in much higher imposts on the public, than paying for health care through public taxes.

    The other example of privatised taxes is illustrated in the case that is often made against the ABC and other public broadcasters that are funded by taxes or special licence fees. Yet the critics of public broadcasting like Murdoch impose their own taxes – what is in effect a sales tax on products that are advertised in the commercial media. In my blog of December 19 ‘Murdoch and Abbott and the ABC’, I drew attention to the argument by Ian McAuley about the high cost of these privatised taxes. He said ‘We are paying about $1,500 per year per household for advertising, of which $500 is for commercial TV and radio… By contrast we are paying about $120 per year for the ABC’. Commercial media collects “taxes”, but it is called ‘advertising revenue’. This revenue is a cost to the advertiser and is loaded into the costs of the products when we purchase a car or holiday travel.

    The private sector has its own forms of taxation. Just by shifting functions from the public to the private sector, does not necessarily reduce what we have to pay out of our own pockets. In many cases public taxes are much more efficient and serve a much more desirable social objective than privatized taxes

  • John Menadue. Anzac and hiding behind the valour of our military.

    For those who may have missed this. I have reposted this earlier piece about Anzac and hiding behind our heroes.  John Menadue

    There is an unfortunate and continuing pattern in our history of going to war- that the more disastrous the war the more politicians and the media hide behind the valour of service men and women. We will see this displayed again on April 25.

    The Director of the Australian War Memorial, Brendan Nelson, drew attention to this well-honed way of distorting and excusing our strategic and political mistakes. In the SMH on October 5 last year, he said ‘The more obscene the war, the more inexplicable it seems for us today, the more many [young people] admire those men and women who went in our name’. (See my blog October 11, 2013, ‘The drumbeat grows louder’.)

    It is not only young people who have been drawn into this distortion of history. Governments and the media have encouraged us to ignore the disastrous wars that we have been engaged in and learn from our mistakes. Rather than face the consequences of acknowledging those disasters, governments and the media then change the subject to the valour of our heroes. We refuse to face the fact that these heroes have often died in vain

    By any measure our involvement in the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have been disastrous. So what do our governments, the Australian War Memorial and the media do? They avoid examining how we got into such disastrous wars. They do this by dwelling on the heroism of our service people. VC winners are an ideal way to change the subject from a disastrous war to an Australian hero.

    There is no doubt that they are heroic, but the wars they fought in were anything but heroic. These three wars were disastrous but we refuse to acknowledge that fact. The consequence will be that in the future we will continue to make foolish decisions about getting into war. That could occur over the dispute between Japan and China over the islands in the East-China Sea.

    In this cover up of failed policies, prime ministers, ministers, opposition leaders and the media have attended almost every ship taking Australian service personnel to or from war zones in the Middle East. I don’t think the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have missed any funeral of a veteran of those wars. There was even a fly-over in Gippsland for an Australian soldier who had accidentally shot himself.

    Our involvement in WWI was disastrous in every way. We acted like a colony at the behest of England But we didn’t spend time dwelling on the catastrophe as a result of our strategic and political mistakes. That hopefully would discourage us from repeating them in the future. Instead we deluged ourselves and continue to do so in the valour of those who served and died in WWI.

    WWII was much more a war we had to fight in our own national interest and for the freedom of our region. But the recall of that war and the sacrifices of our military personnel is quite small at the Australian War Memorial compared with the coverage of WWI. We had a strong case for involvement in WWII but not WWI. Yet the coverage at the Australian War Memorial does exactly the reverse. Strategically Kokoda was more important to Australia than Gallipoli.

    In his excellent new book ‘Rupert Murdoch’ – a re-assessment” Professor  Rod Tiffen draws attention to the way that News Ltd in the UK covered its mistaken  support for  the appalling  wars in Iraq and Afghanistan . It just changed the subject. News Ltd never attempted to seriously  examine the fiction and mistaken policies which it supported and which led the UK into those wars. It changed the subject by attacking PM Gordon Brown for not looking after the veterans. Rod Tiffen put it this way.

    ‘In one of the last issues of The Sun edited by Rebekah Brooks, the front page consisted of the faces of the 207 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan, with a large headline across the middle, reading “Don’t you know there’s a bloody war on”. The strap at the top said “Message to politicians failing our heroes” … The multipage splash was accompanied by a cartoon of a wounded soldier with the caption “abandoned”.’

    Tiffen added ‘Responsible newspapers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times reflected publicly on their journalistic failings during the period [of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars]’.  

    But not News Ltd and Rupert Murdoch.

    What the Murdoch papers did in the UK is common amongst governments and media generally. They refuse to acknowledge their complicity in disastrous wars. To cover their tracks they focus on the heroism of service people.

    It is unpatriotic and cowardly to refuse to examine and publicly acknowledge decisions about going to war. That is surely the most momentous decision that any government can make. But by focusing on the story and the valour of service people, like successive Australian Prime Ministers, Rupert Murdoch and the Australian War Memorial, we are discouraged from looking honestly at our history.

    If we don’t learn from our mistakes we will keep repeating them. We must stop hiding behind our heroes.

     

  • We were warned about lobbying.

    In my blog of April 19 2014, ‘This is about more than a bottle of wine’ I referred to the need for major reforms in lobbying. 

    Three and a half years ago the ICAC in NSW brought forward proposals to better manage lobbying and avoid corruption. The Recommendations of the ICAC are still relevant today. If action had been taken at the end of 2010 we could have avoided many of the problems that have arisen in NSW. The ICAC report follows.

    John Menadue

    (more…)

  • Simon Rice. Racial vilification, social values and humility

    I have spent a professional lifetime trying to get people to know about (let alone respect) anti-discrimination law, and suddenly everyone knows about ‘section 18C’.  For all the wrong reasons.

    A right reason for knowing about 18C would be because it is offers guidance on what can fairly be said and done on the basis of race.  A wrong reason would be because it is characterised as an unwarranted limit on ‘free speech’.

    For close to 20 years, the limits imposed by 18C have been unremarkable. The Australian Human Rights Commission receives and resolves complaints about conduct that exceeds the limits, and the federal courts decide cases when the complaints cannot be resolved.

    As with any legal regulation, awareness of 18C, and understanding about how it works, has grown over time. But most importantly, 18C, as with any legal regulation, stands as a statement of public values, a declaration by the government, on our behalf, of what is and is not acceptable in society.

    For close to 20 years we have told ourselves and the world that an Australia value is to not tolerate race-based words that cause harm.  Brandis has declared that not only we will tolerate such words, but we will encourage them.  So the 18C debate is about much more than the unremarkable exercise of setting limits on free speech.  It is, as well, about the role of our representatives in articulating public values and, relatedly, about the place of legislation in expressing those values.

    Public values change, and law needs to change with them, though it often lags behind. When there is sufficient public momentum a government acts to reflect popular will by making, amending or repealing a law.  In the current racial vilification debate, ‘free speech’ has been promoted as an Australian public value that is overly-limited by 18C, and that should now be given greater prominence.

    Has the time come to resile from the values that are expressed in 18C? It is hard to see anything that suggests that Australian values have reverted to a time when racial abuse was permissible.  Despite the Attorney-General’s notorious defence of our right to be bigots, there is no evidence that a large number of us actually want to express bigotry any more than 18C allows.

    The ‘free speech’ rhetoric is, in fact, a claim to ‘free racist speech’, and the Racial Discrimination Act allows a great deal of free racist speech; persistent reference to 18C overlooks the wide exceptions available in 18D.  We are very free to engage in race-based speech in Australia; as Richard Ackland asked ‘what is it that these people really want to say about race, colour, etc, that they are currently chilled from saying by the anti-free-speech RDA?’.

    The one celebrated case when someone wanted to say something about race, but failed to do so within the exceptions in section 18D, was Andrew Bolt’s.  If it was not for that case, and News Limited’s determined attack on 18C as a result, we would not be having this debate, and our racial vilification law would have continued doing its work.

    Senator Brandis invites us all to engage in racist speech.  When your child comes home from school dismissing ‘boongs’ as lazy and ‘towel-heads’ as terrorists, she can say that Senator Brandis told her that she has the right to be a bigot.  This type of ‘leadership’ is unworthy of an elected official, let alone Australia’s first law officer.

    Specifically, Brandis’s amendments to 18C invite anyone to say anything about anyone, under the guise of ‘public discussion’.  Perhaps it is the contemporaneous announcement of the reintroduction of knights and dames that makes me wonder whether Brandis’s idea of public discussion is still in the 19th century: a town hall meeting or a Hyde Park soap box.  These days, very little is not ‘public discussion’.  Media such as websites, blogs, Facebook, YouTube and tweets enable the public promotion of ideas and opinions as never before.

    The contemporary unregulated, unbounded world of public discussion gives the lie to those who disdain government regulation and would rely instead on the ‘marketplace of ideas’ as a way of regulating speech.  The brave new world of public discussion is undiscerning in the relative prominence it gives to speech: in the absence of any guiding principles, vicious and hateful opinion is as ‘valid’ as that which is respectful and affirming.

    There is, therefore, no ‘exchange’ as there might be in a market, no mechanism for evaluating opinion; online, everything has a claim to credibility.  There is no ordered exchange of opinion.  Opportunities for debate are limited, most of what ‘said’ remains untested and unchallenged, and it is implausible to claim that opinions will thrive or fail on merit. 

    This unregulated space suits those with the capacity to exploit it, to make the loudest noise, and to dominate.  Politicians and news media corporations have that capacity, and 18C stands in their way.  They attack it because they can, and they (wilfully?) fail to see and respect the power they have. Without the quality of self-restraint, they are able to say that something should be done simply because it can be done. Without the quality of empathy, they are able to say that causing offence doesn’t matter. And without the quality of humility, they are able to decide what level of racial abuse people should live with.

    While politicians and news media corporations have the power to dominate public discussion, racial minorities do not.  Although the backlash against Brandis’s proposed amendment of 18C has been substantial, it comes largely from those who receive 18C’s protection – that is, from those who are on the receiving end of race-based conduct, particularly migrants and indigenous peoples.

    Our social minorities, who look to the government for protection in a majoritarian ethos, now find that their government promotes a right to oppress them.  In this perverse situation, it is vital that members of the majority stand against their colleagues, and stand by the state’s obligation to protect the vulnerable who are under its care.

    Simon Rice teaches law at the ANU. He is the Professor of Law, Director, Law Reform and Social Justice, ANU College of Law. He is also Chair of the ACT Law Reform Advisory Council. 

  • Rod Tiffen. Abbott contempt of court.

    After the 2013 election, the ABC satirical program The Hamster Decides responded to an election night comment by the columnist for the Australian Chris Kenny that the ABC’s funding should be cut with an animated version of Kenny having intercourse with a dog.  Kenny demanded an apology and then sued for defamation.

    It is unusual for satirical programs or cartoons to be the subject of defamation actions, and such cases carry dangers for both sides in any litigation.  A jury’s reaction to something that in ordinary discourse would be bad taste or disproportionate is unpredictable.

    On March 6, Justice Beech-Jones ruled that the case could proceed to trial by jury because it carried the defamatory imputation that Kenny was a low, contemptible and disgusting person, although he rejected the imputation that the skit implied Kenny literally had sex with dogs.

    Following this partial victory by Kenny, there was a short publicity blitz by all those usual suspects who seize any opportunity to criticize the ABC.  In the short-term, Kenny and his allies seemed to be winning the propaganda war.  On the ABC panel show, Q and A (March 10), not one panelist took the program’s side.

    There were several claims that all Kenny had wanted was an apology, but this is in some doubt.  Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mike Carlton said that he had it on strong authority that Kenny had demanded a considerable sum of money, an on-air apology to be telecast after Media Watch, plus the statement that he was a fair and impartial journalist.  Presumably if the ABC holds its nerve and the case goes to trial, the truth of these early interactions will be revealed.

    Perhaps the most notable intervention was by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who said in a TV interview: ‘Well the point I make is that government money should be spent sensibly.  And defending the indefensible is not a very good way to spend government money and, next time the ABC comes to the government looking for more money, this is the kind of thing that we would want to ask them questions about.’

    It is hard to remember any other prime minister making such an intervention into a civil case in progress.  It takes its place alongside other Abbott precedents, such as handing over his predecessors’ cabinet documents to the Royal Commission on the home insulation scheme, or using international fora such as the World Economic Forum in Davos to make domestic partisan criticisms.

    So far Abbott has had a Teflon run since becoming Liberal leader.  Partly this reflects the double standards at work in Australian politics.  If a Labor leader had made a comment like Abbott’s say about a News Corp columnist, there would have been a huge outcry.  Those media which have dutifully reported Abbott’s comments as sensible observations would instead have been filled with outrage.

    We have a novel situation in Australia at the moment, where substantial sections of the media (News Corp newspapers and commercial radio talk shows, at least in Sydney) see themselves primarily in tribal terms, that they are on side with the government.  In the process, those who seek to report politics impartially (the Fairfax press and in particular the ABC) are constantly attacked.

    Prima facie, Abbott’s statement seems to not only have decided what the outcome of the case should be, but also to threaten one side financially for continuing.  A naïve reading would consider that in a case which is sub judice and to go to a jury, this would constitute contempt of court.  But it is another Abbott precedent that is unlikely to cause him any damage.

    Rod Tiffen is Emeritus Professor in Government and International Relations, University of Sydney.

     

     

  • John Menadue. The war on asylum seekers

    For political purposes the government has deliberately embarked on a policy and a language to militarise the asylum seeker issue in the same way the Howard Government did in the “war on terror”. It is designed to highlight the government’s resolve, to play to our fears about a threat and to lessen our rights to be informed. Failure to disclose is justified because we are ‘at war’.

    But the ‘war on terror’ and the so-called ‘war on asylum seekers’ would in fact be much better conducted by police, customs and our intelligence services.

    In this misuse of the military and language for political purposes we should not be surprised if a two-star military general is drawn into the political fray. Neither should he or his colleagues be surprised if they also get caught in political flack.  If they are in the kitchen, they can’t complain about the heat!  The military has crossed the line before. General Cosgrave showed that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Howard Government in forcing Tampa to transfer the asylum seekers on board. He will now be our Governor General.

    Senator Conroy has been criticised for saying that General Angus Campbell, the Head of Operation Sovereign Borders, has participated in a ‘political cover-up’. In my view that is precisely what the Government and General Campbell have done. The military has been manoeuvred by the government into a role in the coordination of government agencies, most of them civil agencies like immigration and customs. To avoid public examination, the Minister Scott Morrison and General Campbell keep hiding behind the parroted phrase ‘on-water matters’. This is a political cover-up in which the military has become involved. That cover-up should be called as such.

    The Coalition has been quite clear in its language that it is at war with asylum seekers and people smugglers. Scott Morrison has described Operation Sovereign Borders as ‘a military led border security operation’. Tony Abbott has spoken of a war against people smugglers. In the first week of parliament Scott Morrison said that ‘The battle [against people smugglers] is being fought using the full arsenal of measures’.

    In war situations, the withholding of information can be justified. But surely we are not at war against unarmed people in rickety boats.

    Just consider what we heard last week in Senate Estimates about Operation Sovereign Borders and the cover ups.

    • Under the charade of ‘operational security’ the Defence Force Chief, General David Hurley would not confirm that orange lifeboats had been used. He replied ‘That is an on-water issue’. Yet we have all seen the orange boats on TV time and time again.
    • Asked if the lifeboats were Australian-flagged, Hurley responded ‘We can’t comment on on-water issues’.
    • Asked if the lifeboats were navy assets, Hurley replied ‘They are an on-water issue’.
    • Asked if there was general training for navy personnel in the handling of the lifeboats, the Chief of the Navy, Ray Griggs, said ‘If I talk about training then I would be going to “on-water matters”’.
    • How at least six Australian navy vessels intruded into Indonesian waters was a matter of ‘on-water operations’. Undoubtedly the crew of the navy vessels will be censured, but not General Angus Campbell who is in charge of OSB. That would be politically embarrassing because he has become the point man in the government’s cruel policies and the cover up.

    When public policy becomes militarised like this, no-one, including the military, can hide behind trumped up excuses, time and time again about ‘on-water issues’.

    How out of proportion this has all become. The plight of vulnerable people has become a highly politicised and military issue. This is a humanitarian issue which must be handled with firmness, but that does not mean that the military should be leading it. We also need the truth rather than senior officers and military leaders using lame excuses. We have seen too many other instances where the performance of the military, particularly at the Australian Defence Force Academy leaves a lot to be desired.

    Senator Conroy was much closer to the truth than his critics in the Canberra press gallery who so often see parliamentary events through a party political prism only and seems oblivious to the wider and more important issues of policy and principle.

  • John Menadue. The Carbon Tax and Flat-Earthers.

    Despite all the political rhetoric and hysteria, the evidence is mounting almost daily that the carbon tax is largely working as planned and that its impact on electricity prices is quite small, particularly compared with the ‘network costs’, the poles and wires, which have been the main drivers of increased electricity prices.

    But the flat-earthers in the government and News Ltd refuse to face the facts. They have run one dishonest campaign after another on the carbon tax, then pink batts and then the education revolution. We are paying an extraordinarily heavy price for the abuse of power by the Murdoch media in the dishonest and partisan campaigns they run. Are they all as ignorant as Rupert Murdoch’s favourite editor Rebekah Brooks who told a London court this week that she didn’t know that phone tapping was illegal!

    Just recall the extremist and exaggerated language of Tony Abbott in association with News Ltd on the carbon tax.

    • Whyalla will be wiped off the map.
    • Julia Gillard is trying to close down Gladstone.
    • The carbon tax is socialism masquerading as environmentalism.
    • It is a ‘great new tax on everything’.
    • The impact of the tax will be ‘almost unimaginable’

    It says something about the corruption of public debate that Tony Abbott’s campaign with News Ltd’s backing was successful. It was based on fiction and not fact.

    In October last year, one year after the introduction of the carbon tax, the impact on the CPI was almost undetectable. Treasury had estimated that a $23 per tonne emission tax would result in an increase of $9.90 in the cost of living for an average household. It turned out that the impact was even less than the Treasury has forecast.

    Earlier this week Michael West in the SMH on February 24 drew attention to the work of the Energy, Economics and Management Group at the University of Qld. These researchers found that network costs and retail costs which included the profit margin of energy retailers made up 62% of NSW residential electricity prices in 2013. The carbon tax made up only 10% of prices.

    In comparing increases in electricity prices in NSW and Qld between 2007 and 2013, the University of Qld Group found that price increases per kWh were due to the following.

    • Network costs – +7c
    • Retail costs, including profit margin – +2/3c
    • Green schemes, including carbon tax and renewable energy target, – less than 3C

    Generating costs were relatively stable over the period.

    The main increase in prices has been due to the ‘gold plating’ of the networks and the price-gouging by retailers along with large executive bonuses. Green schemes including the carbon tax have a much smaller impact – about 25% of the total increase in prices.

    Michael West put it this way. ‘Tony Abbott [must recognise] that it is not the carbon tax and renewable energy costs that are primarily responsible for energy hikes. The culprit is network costs and state governments that are making a killing’.

    Last week in Sydney the IMF chief, Christine Lagard, said that ‘environmental degradation’ [carbon pollution] was an external cost to the economy that had to be priced. She said that these ‘externalities’ must have a price. Almost every economist will tell us that a tax on ‘externalities’ like a carbon tax is much preferred to Direct Action that the Abbott Government is adopting.

    Tony Abbott has done enormous damage to good policy making to curb carbon pollution and global warming. The flat-earthers have so far won the day in Australia. But surely it cannot last. Is the Australian public so gullible to put up with these scare campaigns on the carbon tax? The flat-earthers in the coalition and News Ltd have done a great disservice to Australia.

    On top of this Tony Abbott is now hemming himself in with people who reject the overwhelming scientific evidence. The head of Tony Abbott’s business advisory group Maurice Newman and Dick Warburton the head of the review of the Renewable Energy Target both think that climate science is “group think”. Newman goes even further and describes climate science as a “scientific delusion”

    When will all this nonsense stop?

    For the sake of our children and grandchildren the flat-earthers must be strongly opposed

     

  • Mark Gregory. NBN – ageing copper network and structural separation.

    The Australian telecommunication industry is in crisis and centre stage is an ageing copper network that some would have you believe is good for another hundred years and others argue it is time to move to an all fibre access network.

    But the problems extend far beyond copper versus fibre and go to the heart of what an industry needs if it is to be a successful contributor to the Australian economy. As Australia struggles to find out how this sorry saga will end, questions should be asked of our politicians and telecommunication industry leaders why there is no plan for the future.

    To understand why criticism can be levelled at the development of one of Australia’s most important industries it is necessary to wind back the clock to 1982 when the Davidson Enquiry recommended the introduction of a competitive telecommunications industry.

    At the time Australia had three telecommunication organisations. The Australian Telecommunications Commission (ATC), trading as Telecom Australia, was responsible for the provision of terrestrial telecommunication services within Australia. Aussat Pty Ltd was responsible for satellite telecommunication and broadcasting services within Australia, and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC) was responsible for the provision of international telecommunication services. Aussat was established with a restrictive license that prevented competition with Telecom Australia, and to ensure this was adhered to, Aussat was effectively prevented from raising the capital it needed to flourish and two directors of Telecom were appointed to the Aussat Board.

    The Davidson Enquiry’s recommendation was timely and if it was implemented carefully the Australian telecommunications industry could have entered a period of expansion, competition and prosperity. So what went wrong? Everything.

    The first mistake, which has never been corrected, was a failure to map out the future of the fixed infrastructure, which at the time was largely copper in the access network and coaxial cable, microwave radio or copper pairs in the transit links.

    Optical fibre was new in 1982 and the Telecom Research Labs had started the process of introducing optical links into the Australian telecommunications network. Enough was known about the potential future capabilities of optical fibre for forward network planning to incorporate it into all major trunk routes by year 2000 and access networks thereafter.

    During the 1950s the then Postmaster General’s Department expanded the copper network beyond urban areas and commenced an ongoing maintenance and upgrade program. A key reason the copper network expanded beyond the urban areas was the recently adopted universal service principal by government that resulted after a robust campaign by regional and remote Australians for telephone services.

    The modern Australian copper network was progressively rolled out in the 1950s, first in urban areas and then to regional areas, with an anticipated lifetime of 50 years. In some areas the copper network is now more than 10 years beyond the anticipated lifetime. Copper networks do degrade over time, due to the effects of water leakage, the environment and mechanical damage. Over the decades the cost of maintaining the copper network has been steadily climbing.

    In the period 1982 to 1992 the fate of the three monopoly telecommunications providers was debated within the federal government, and initially the focus appeared to be on how to ensure each organisation remained viable rather than how to promote competition. For example, proposals for Aussat and OTC to merge were rejected in favour of OTC being merged with the ATC which was renamed AOTC in 1991 and finally became Telstra Corporation in 1993. Aussat was sold to a new entrant, Optus, as part of a deal enabling it to share a duopoly with Telstra in 1991-97 as a first step towards national infrastructure competition.

    Guidance on how the fixed infrastructure network could be expected to change over the next 50 years was not provided and was put into the hands of the telecommunications market to best determine, within the constraints of an amended Trade Practices Act (1997). But the reality was and remains that the future of the fixed infrastructure remained largely in Telstra’s hands until the advent of the 2009 National Broadband Network (NBN) policy, though this policy was flawed and Telstra retained ownership of exchanges, pits, ducts, traps and other infrastructure to be utilized by the NBN.

    In 1997 the government made extensions to the Trade Practices Act 1974 that guaranteed access to Telecom (Telstra) infrastructure on terms that were to be negotiated and ultimately regulated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). In 1997 the Australian telecommunications market was formally opened to full competition in accordance with the Telecommunications Act 1997.

    Or so the government would have us believe, because by carefully restructuring the existing incumbents the government created two monopolies that remain today: Telstra (national copper access network) and Aussat (later Optus – satellite broadcasting).

    Whilst other companies have launched satellites, installed undersea cables, installed fibre networks and built mobile cellular networks, Telstra and Optus remain dominant because each was provided with public infrastructure and in Telstra’s case the public infrastructure included the thousands of telephone exchanges and tens of thousands of kilometres of pits, ducts and traps that house the copper network.

    So Australia slipped into a regime where “competitors” would pay Telstra and Optus to utilise their infrastructure at rates negotiated or set by the ACCC, which ultimately include a profit component that ensures Telstra and Optus remain viable. The degree to which Optus retains an anti-competitive advantage has diminished more than Telstra’s anti-competitive advantage.

    Telstra in particular has taken every opportunity to leverage its infrastructure to optimise profit, often arguably at the expense of competition. As mobile telephone networks became more prevalent Telstra was able to convince the government that the mobile network should be used to provide aspects of black spot remediation, provision of emergency information and services that might be considered to be better provided under the universal service for which Telstra was most recently awarded another contract for 20 years in 2012.

    What this means is that Telstra has been able to draw on local, state and federal government funds to assist in the build out of the Telstra mobile cellular network. The extent of public funding received by Telstra for mobile network expansion has been difficult to quantify.

    At the last election the government announced that $100 million would be provided to assist with mobile cellular network expansion and black spot remediation. Telstra will argue that its network is best placed to facilitate the government’s aims, but only if all the money or the greater proportion goes its way.

    By the early 2000s Telstra found itself with two infrastructure competitors in the mobile cellular market and about 10 infrastructure competitors in the provision of DSL over the copper network. Prior to 2008 Telstra charged DSL providers for fixed telephone connection line rental in conjunction with a line rental cost for the provision of DSL. Effectively for every DSL provider customer Telstra would benefit through the provision of a fixed telephone service ensuring Telstra’s profit related to the copper network remained high.

    The decision by the ACCC, which Telstra fought all the way to the High Court in 2008, to introduce unconditioned local loop provisions effectively ended Telstra’s ability to force DSL providers to include fixed telephone connections with DSL.

    The loss of this income and the ACCC’s ongoing review of the charges that Telstra could levy DSL providers for DSL only connections meant that Telstra put the fixed network infrastructure into a holding pattern whilst Telstra focused its investment on expanding and upgrading its mobile cellular network.

    In the Howard government years between 1996 and 2007 questions were asked of Telstra about upgrading the copper network to FTTN for broadband delivery, and as time progressed the FTTP option was also discussed. The Rudd government asked the same questions and received the same answers, which amounted to Telstra asking for a government handout to upgrade to FTTN or overbuild to FTTP.

    By the 2000s there was a dawning realisation that effective competition would only flourish if there was a way to do what should have been done in the mid-1980s and that was to split Telstra into retail and wholesale organisations, so that future privatisation would facilitate effective retail growth whilst ensuring the wholesale organisation could go to the market when demand dictated to upgrade or overbuild infrastructure.

    In the Australian context this means upgrading or overbuilding the entire network, no piecemeal approach, no urban cherry picking of high value areas, because the universal service legislation effectively enshrines the right of every Australian to fair and equal access to a standard telephone service (it does not dictate fair and equal access to broadband or mobile services, which are left to the market). The 2012 government review and update of the universal service obligation did not include the provision of data services in the legislation and for this reason the outcome was flawed. Any thought that regional and remote Australia would accept anything less than a socially acceptable national outcome would return us to the robust campaign days of the early 1950s that led to the universal service in the first place.

    Whilst not discussing the national broadband network at this point, but staying focused on the reasons why the Australian telecommunications industry is not truly open and competitive, it needs to be pointed out that by “leasing” access to Telstra’s infrastructure for the national broadband network the government has effectively ensured that Telstra will retain its market dominance, because it can undercut any provider using the national broadband network knowing that it can make up the income shortfall through the profit it receives through the infrastructure lease agreement and maintenance arrangements.

    So where to from here? Australia is long overdue for a non-political rethink of how to facilitate an open and competitive telecommunications industry that results in effective structural change that includes Telstra’s separation into retail and wholesale organisations and also provides forward looking guidance on what the industry’s infrastructures needs will be over the next millennium.

     

    Mark Gregory is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at RMIT University. His blog can be found here.

     

  • Chris Geraghty. The ABC and Scott Morrison

    The ABC has been much criticised, by our Prime Minister no less, and by the silly bullies on some commercial radio stations, for not being patriotic enough, for not barracking for the home team. Disloyal journalists published a story that some wounded, unwelcome refugees who had been intercepted on the high seas by our navy boys and girls were alleging that they had been tortured by them, forced to grasp and hold onto hot engine pipes and burnt. These dishonourable journalists broadcasted pictures of several dark-skinned men presenting their severely burnt hands to camera and complaining about the brave troops defending our borders.

    I don’t know whether the allegations are true or false. I wasn’t there at the time to witness what was happening. Some people were there if such an incident or anything like it occurred. Presumably the refugees themselves were there, but even that I do not know from my own knowledge, so I must suspend my judgment pending further information. However, they have said that they were there and that they were tortured, or at least treated in such a way as to sustain serious injuries.

    The Minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison, would have us believe that the incident never happened, that the allegations are unsubstantiated, and therefore false. He might be right. I don’t know. And neither does he. He wasn’t there either. So he is clearly relying on what he’s been told, though we don’t know what he was told, or by whom. We don’t know whether the person he spoke to (if he in fact spoken to anyone) was present at the time or where he got his information from. As far as the Minister’s denial of the truth of the allegations is concerned, we are still all in the dark.

    Now, as to the allegations themselves, Scott Morrison invited us to accept that they are false, for two reasons.

    Firstly, this alleged incident was not something our brave, professional, respected, trustworthy navy men and women would ever be part of. It’s offensive to contemplate the possibility.

    Secondly, there is no evidence to substantiate these serious allegations.

    As to the first basis offered for rejecting the allegations, like all other patriotic Australians, I’d like to think it is true that our service personnel would not engage in such cruel and criminal treatment of vulnerable human beings. But this was the very same reason offered for years by naive Catholics to refute the vile allegations that members of the clergy were sexually abusing children. Professional people don’t always act professionally. Sometimes, some professional people, even Australian professional people, commit crimes. It’s hard to believe, but unfortunately it’s true. American troops in Vietnam engaged in the mass slaughter of civilians, and participated in horrible torture of the enemy in Iraq. We even saw pictures on television of unprofessional, criminal behavior of service men and women. It’s not new, and it’s not confined to the enemy. And closer to home, we have had to accept that unwanted sexual activity, criminal sexual behavior has been engaged in on naval vessels by our brave, professional service-men. I wish it wasn’t true, but we have to accept that sometimes good men can do terrible things, especially to people they have learnt to classify as “illegals”, as “invaders”. If these allegations eventually prove to be true, the shock jocks and our Prime Minister will have a lot to answer for.

    As to the second reason proffered by the minister, it might surprise him to know that there is evidence to substantiate the allegations, and no admissible evidence to undermine them – only the merest hearsay of the minister. The evidence might be thin. We might wish to have more evidence – evidence of an independent witness, for example. There might be grounds for some suspicion. As the evidence stands, it only amounts to a prima facie case, but in the absence of any admissible evidence to the contrary, it substantiates and establishes the allegations.

    What is the evidence? It consists of three important items. Firstly, several people, more than one, make a similar allegation. Secondly, each alleges that he was tortured or treated harshly by members of the Australian navy, and suffered injuries to their hands. And thirdly, there are pictures (presumably genuine pictures) of the burns sustained to the palm area of their hands.

    Now, that’s the evidence. It’s easy to say that it’s a slur, that it’s false and that the ABC should not have given succor to the enemy, but neither the navy nor the Government has taken any steps to demonstrate in any way that the allegations are groundless. And they claim to have the proof. It’s just that no one else is allowed to see or hear it. We have to trust the word of the minister. He assures us that the claims are scurrilous and groundless.

    Let’s hear from someone who was there, other than the refugees. Someone from the poop-deck or the engine-room. The captain or one of the petty officers. The person recording the events on video as they were unfolding. Let’s see the film. We didn’t see the poor mother throwing her baby overboard. Maybe we won’t see sailors mistreating refugees on the high seas.

    It’s not the traitorous behaviour of the ABC journalists that worries me. It’s the fact that smug, secretive ministers and their shock jocks treat the public like drongos.

     

     

     

  • Walter Hamilton. The ABC and its Japanese Cousin.

    If the board and management of the ABC need to firm up their ideas about the proper relationship between a public broadcaster and the government of the day they might consider what is happening in Japan.

    NHK, that nation’s public broadcaster, is a $7bn enterprise largely funded from television licence fees, with a board of governors appointed by the prime minister. It exerts enormous influence through its highly rating news and information programs, but the situation in which it now finds itself––criticised for being a mouthpiece for the conservative national government––is in sharp contrast to the ABC’s predicament. In thinking about how to respond to the attacks of Tony Abbott and others, managing director Mark Scott and chairman Jim Spigelman might reflect on their Japanese cousin.

    There are direct parallels. The ABC has an international service that must report on controversial issues such as the Navy’s involvement in forcing back boats of asylum seekers from Indonesia. NHK has an international service that must report on issues just as touchy, including the territorial disputes Japan has with China and South Korea.

    On 25 January, at his first news conference after being appointed NHK president, Katsuto Momii (a former business executive with no background in broadcasting) was asked how the organisation should approach the subject of the Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands. He replied: ‘International broadcasting will be different from domestic programs. Regarding the territorial issue, it will only be natural to clearly present Japan’s position. It would not do for us to say “left” when the government is saying “right”’. In responses to other questions, he effectively endorsed the Abe government’s position on visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, the use of ‘comfort women’ during the war and the necessity of a new state secrets law.

    Though clearly embarrassed by this kowtowing performance, the government’s chief spokesman later excused Momii’s remarks on the basis that he was expressing his ‘personal views’––as if that made them irrelevant. (Former ABC chairman, Donald McDonald, while still in that position, continued his fund-raising activities for the Liberal Party according to the same logic, so there is an Australian precedent.) On Friday, summoned before a parliamentary committee, a nervous Momii heard an opposition member express the concern of some that NHK was becoming ‘the public relations department of the government’. Also last week, an economics professor quit an NHK radio program, on which he’d been a commentator for 20 years, after being told to refrain from criticising the nuclear power industry during the current Tokyo gubernatorial election. Keeping silent on the election issue, he was advised, was NHK’s way of maintaining balance.

    By some accounts, the man that Momii replaced at the top of NHK, Masayuki Matsumoto, decided not to seek a second term because of complaints from within Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party that NHK gave too much prominence to critics of nuclear power and the American military bases in Japan. It must be said, however, Matsumoto’s presidency was marked by other scandals and for most of his three years the now-opposition DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan) was in office.

    Nevertheless, for someone who watches NHK daily (via satellite) a change in tone and content of its news and current affairs programs has become more apparent since the Abe government returned to power. Conspicuous has been the switch from prominent coverage of anti-bases activities in Okinawa to muted and irregular coverage of this issue. For such a thing to be apparent is significant because, for as long as I can remember, NHK’s news product has been predictably middle-of-the-road. Never flamboyant or opinionated, its programs could be boring through avoidance of controversy, and thus culturally conservative, but rarely did they carry political bias on their sleeve. Now, according to Momii, the policy is: what’s right for the LDP government is right for NHK.

    How this will play out with the Japanese public remains to be seen. Already one in four television owners is refusing to pay the NHK licence fee, for whatever reason. In this respect, NHK is more exposed to the public mood than the ABC, which is funded directly by parliament. It is easier for the Abbott government to punish the ABC by, for instance, taking away the Australia Network (which is funded separately through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade).

    There are some within the ABC who would welcome this step. They have always felt the international service sapped resources from the corporation’s primary, domestic functions and would rather have the battle-lines with the Coalition drawn along the issue of how the ABC serves its Australian audience.

    But this would be risky and shortsighted. Australia Network, if it is to project the nation’s values to the world, must be able to report without fear or favour, a core value in a society that embraces free speech. Here and now is the place to stand up and be heard. Secondly, the ABC’s critics obviously believe it is easier to make the case that the corporation has grown ‘too big’ than it is to win the ‘bias’ argument. (Donald McDonald himself took this line during a recent appearance on the ABC, though when asked for examples to prove the ABC was overstretched only mentioned seeing errors in Supers, the text that appears on screen identifying people during news items.) Chopping off the Australia Network, if achieved without great political cost, could embolden more and deeper cuts aimed at specific domestic services.

    In making a defence for the role of a vigorous public broadcaster the ABC’s bosses might look down the path NHK is sliding and take heart from the alarm being raised in Japan. The ABC’s journalists and other program-makers, meanwhile, though understandably eager to rush to the barricades to counter the apparent threat from the conservative side of politics should think again. It would be much better for them and for their organisation not to treat this as a partisan cause (Labor, when in power, also wants a co-operative ABC) and avoid openly siding with critics on the left (including on Facebook). The principles of free speech and openness that form part of the fabric of our democracy are, and must remain, above party politics. If the ABC, in upholding the highest standards of professional journalism, must sometimes say ‘right’ when the government says ‘left’, then the Australian public can be relied upon to know and respect the difference.

    Walter Hamilton, a former Tokyo correspondent, worked at the ABC for 33 years.

     

  • John Menadue. Alcohol and violence on the streets — the tip of the iceberg.

    In recent weeks public attention has been focused on alcohol fuelled violence in Sydney streets and the very slow response of the NSW government. But the response when it did come really only addressed the ugly tip of the iceberg. the violence on the streets. The government response was superficial – minimum mandatory sentencing, greater powers for the police, special licence conditions and lockouts and closures.

    Very little attention was given to prevention and remedial action – the widespread social and economic cost of alcohol misuse across Australia as revealed in our workplaces, roads, and criminal justice and health systems.

    We focus on cannabis, but compared with alcohol, it is a much less potent and dangerous drug. Only a week or so ago, President Obama said ‘I don’t think that cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol’. He was right.

    The long-term effects of alcohol are well-known as outlined by the University of NSW Drug and Alcohol Research Centre– cancer of the mouth, brain injury, high blood pressure, weakness and loss of muscle tissue, inflamed stomach lining, increased risk of lung infections, severe swelling of the liver, inflamed pancreas, and other dangerous consequences. Street violence in Kings Cross is really only a small part of a much larger problem.

    The Australian Institute of Criminology, in April 2013, set out the cost of alcohol misuse in 2010.  The costs were estimated at $14.4 billion which is about double the revenue the Commonwealth government receives from alcohol taxes. That estimated $14.4 billion cost four years ago was made up as follows:

    • Criminal justice system- $3 billion, police, courts, prisons, child-protection, etc.
    • Health system – $1.7 billion in hospital, nursing home, ambulance and other areas.
    • Productivity – $6 billion, mainly losses of production through impaired work and imprisonment of large numbers of people.
    • Traffic accidents – $3.7 billion.

    This study commented that its finding of about $14.4 billion of alcohol costs in 2010 was conservative. Furthermore the figure does not include the negative effects of alcohol on others, estimated to be $6.8 billion in 2010.

    There is clearly an enormous problem just below the surface of street violence. We are concentrating our attention on the streets when there are other major problems below the surface.

    The study of the Australian Institute of Criminology points to the need for prevention and diversion strategies. That really means breaking the booze culture.

    I suggest a major diversion strategy should be the review alcohol advertising in association with sport. It is surely an obvious contradiction to be promoting a healthy life style through sport and promoting alcohol at the same time. In my blog of January 4 ‘Cricket – junk food and alcohol’, I drew attention to the saturation advertising of alcohol during the Ashes Tests. It now continues in the One Day Series. It is unremitting. The alcohol advertising is on the scoreboard, the ground, the shirt fronts, the sleeves the caps, boundary fences, stumps and sight-boards. So far the ‘baggy green’ cap does not carry alcohol advertising but surely it won’t be long before it is carrying a beer logo!. With almost all points covered with alcohol advertising how about Carlton Mid tattoos!  The victorious Australian team poured Victorian Bitter all over each other in the dressing room after the series win. The Australian coach and captain, with one arm around each other and holding beers aloft meandered around the Sydney Cricket Ground. It was tacky. It sent a poor message to young people.

    To protect children, the advertising of alcohol on television is banned before 8.30 pm. But because of the power of the alcohol lobby, advertising is on full display almost all day at most of our major sporting events.  To start winding back the enormous cost of alcohol abuse, we should start by prohibiting alcohol advertising on television and radio at all sporting events, just as we did years ago with tobacco advertising. For the sake of young sports fans our major sporting bodies need to break free from the grip of the alcohol lobby.  Our sporting heroes, the role models for the young should also think carefully about filling their pockets with money from the promotion of alcohol. Who will be the first to make a stand? Australian young people would be particularly well served by such leadership.

    Violence in Kings Cross after midnight is just the tip of the iceberg.

  • Pearls and Irritations – one year on. John Menadue

    I launched this blog in January last year. To date there have been 285 posts, just over 5 a week.

    I hope you have found some ‘pearls’ and been ‘irritated’ from time to time. Thank you for your support.

    I have enjoyed putting together stories that I believe are important for Australia’s future.

    I now prefer blogging to speeches and interviews.

    A feature of the blog has been the support of guest bloggers. This has introduced a range of people with interesting ideas and views. As a result, the blog is becoming more like an e-magazine.

    I am a beginner in blogging, as you will have noticed, but Susie has been a great help. We have made changes, including a better weekly summary with lists of posts. Much remains to be done.

    We have appointed a blog manager which will leave me with more time to work on content.

    The traffic is increasing steadily. In February last year, the first full month of the blog,  the number of ‘visits’ (not hits) to the blog was 7063  In December last year “visits” had increased to 33,539. In February last year 14,132 ‘pages’ were read. This has increased to 84,873 in December. The increase has been steady with almost 1,200 readers of the blog each day this month despite the holidays. Many of the readers are friends and contacts but include a considerable number in the media, churches and NGO communities.

    I hope we can be more influential in the years ahead. Your help in suggestions and passing posts and emails to friends is much appreciated.

     

  • Journalists are not welcome in Nauru. Elaine Pearson

    Dramatically increasing the cost of visas to enter Nauru places severe restrictions from the ability of journalists and others to let us know the truth about asylum seekers being held there. John Menadue

    Here’s an innovative way to discourage foreign media scrutiny of a touchy human rights issue: jack-up the cost of a journalist visa 40-fold, from A$200 to A$8000 (US$178 to US$7108). That’s precisely what the government of the small Pacific nation of Nauru has done, dressing up that skyrocketing increase as a means to “increase revenue.”  The fee is non-refundable even if the visa application is rejected.

    The real impact of the visa gouging will be to deter foreign media outlets and freelance journalists from seeking to report on Nauru’s main story of foreign interest – its treatment of asylum seekers. Currently, there are more than 700 people including pregnant women and dozens of children detained on the island, transferred from Australia in an offshore processing arrangement paid for by the Australian government.

    So what might Nauru have to hide? Poor conditions at the detention facilities, for starters. Asylum seekers are housed in tents, often with inadequate ventilation. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is unequivocal, stating that the “harsh physical conditions… not only do not meet international standards – they also have a profound impact on the men, women and children housed there.” Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has praised the conditions in the detention camp in Nauru as “certainly better than in Australian mining camps.”

    So far the Australian government has refrained from commenting on the move, with an immigration official saying “This is a matter for the government of Nauru.” But Nauru’s new measure is in line with Australia’s secrecy about asylum seeker policy and information on boat arrivals, claiming that national security permits its broad restrictions on access to information. It has been politically convenient to ship asylum seekers to isolated Nauru, far from the public view, where Australian media and voters can ignore their plight. It’s time for that approach to end.

    The new fees are nothing less than an attack on media freedom, intended to leave the world, and Australians in particular, with little way of holding the government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott accountable for its refugee policies. With no stories or pictures to present factual accounts of their treatment, the Australian government can continue to demonize those who seek asylum there. The Abbott government needs to make clear that it’s not a party to this outrageous infringement on the right to freedom of expression, by publicly demanding that Nauru drop this fee so that the world can know what is happening there.

    Elaine Pearson is the Australian Director of Human Rights Watch. HRW has just opened an office in Australia. See HRW.org. 

  • Repost: Pink Batts – facts and fiction. John Menadue

    The following is a repost from July 11, 2013. I wonder if it is necessary for the Abbott Government to rake over the past rather than concentrate on the future!

    The fiction is continuing in the uncritical media that only the Commonwealth Government should bear responsibility for the problems of the Home Insulation Scheme. We should consider the facts…

    • 1.1 million Installations were completed under the scheme. There was clearly a rush by the Commonwealth Government to roll out the scheme as part of a successful stimulus plan to provide work as the global financial crisis bore down on us.  Because of the stimulus plan Australia avoided most of the disaster that befell many other countries during the GFC. That should be recognized. But mistakes were made
    • In a column in Crikey of 26 April 2011, there were research findings by blogger Possum Comitatus, which were based on a CSIRO analysis of insulation fires.  (It was not about deaths.) Possum Comitatus concluded that ‘the HIS was three times safer than the industry it replaced in terms of the fires experienced within twelve months of getting installed’. He then looked at the rate of fires over the longer term and came to the same conclusion that the industry was safer following the HIS than it was before. He concluded ‘ultimately the HIS … was much safer in terms of the fire rate than what preceded it’.

    Certainly the number of fires was up, but that was perhaps not surprising given the major increase in installations. But the rate of fires was down.

    Ian McAuley in  New Matilda of 8 July 2003 has pointed out

    • Regulation of the home installation industry is in the hands of State Governments, not the Commonwealth. The states were and still are responsible for safety. In the recent coroner’s finding on a death in Queensland, he recommended that three managers from two insulation companies be referred to the Queensland Attorney General for breaches of the State Electrical Safety Act.
    • The Commonwealth Auditor General found that 29% of installations had deficiencies ranging from minor to series safety concerns. He found that the program was open to fraud, finding 4,000 cases of potential fraud and 67 cases of payments being made to contractors without any work having been done. This is clearly an industry which has attracted more fly-by-night operators than some others. The small industry sector has some downsides.

    Clearly the scheme was poorly administered by the Commonwealth and Kevin Rudd has apologised. But the safety/regulation issue is the responsibility of state governments. Further, the rate of fires was down following the introduction of the program.

    Under the rubric of small government the Commonwealth Department of Environment found itself unable to properly manage the programme. The necessary government skills and experience were just not there. Consultants Minter Ellison therefore advised the Commonwealth Government that the programme be outsourced which in effect limited the Commonwealth’s role to funding and not supervision.

    There is plenty of blame to go around, but it seems that some of the media have chosen only to focus on the Commonwealth Government and Kevin Rudd. The News Limited publications have been particularly sloppy and partisan on the issue. Once again, their political hectoring ran ahead of their  examination of the facts.

    On safety issues beyond the home installation industry, we find that workplace deaths across all industries has fallen by one third since the election of the first Rudd Government. These figures are from Safe Work Australia. Most deaths have occurred in agriculture followed by construction. This downward trend in workplace deaths has been occurring for many years. How much has been due to an emphasis on safety by Ministers Shorten and Albanese is hard to access. But the trend is certainly in the right direction.

    But the myths and the fictions of the pink batts continue.

  • Repost: Are most asylum seekers and refugees Muslims? John Menadue

    Repost for holiday reading.

    Well, as a matter of fact, they are not.

    But I am sure that many commentators and a lot of the community believe that most are Muslim. The dog-whistlers like Scott Morrison feed on this assumption .According to Jane Cadzow in the Sun Herald he urged the Coalition parties “to ramp up its questioning … to capitalise on anti-Muslim sentiment”.

    Figures on this issue are extracted from the DIAC Settlement data base. One reason for the difficulty in analysing the figures is that a religious test is not applied to persons seeking refugee status, and neither should it. Ascertaining religious background often then depends on voluntary declarations.

    The Refugee Convention is blind to religion but the Convention recognises that religious persecution is a valid ground for claiming protection.

    But based on DIAC Settlement data the general picture becomes reasonably clear. For settlement purposes refugees are asked on a voluntary basis to declare their religion as it is likely to assist in settlement in the community.

    In the figures for the year from January 1 2010 there were 8,342 arrivals of refugees and other humanitarian entrants. The religious affiliations were as follows:

    • Christian 4,263 – 51%.
    • Muslim 2,223 – 26%
    • Hindu 1,125 – 13%
    • Other 731 – 10%
    • Total 8,342 – 100%

    In the period 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012, humanitarian arrivals including refugees were as follows.

    • Christian 5,523 – 34%
    • Muslim 6,732 – 42%
    • Buddhist 445 – 3%
    • Hindu 1,089 – 7%
    • Other 2,255 – 14%
    • Total 16,044 – 100%

    These figures give a fairly reliable guide to the religious background of humanitarian entrants in recent years. The increase in Muslim arrivals in the year to 31 March 2012 is largely due to the persecution of Hazaras both in their own country Afghanistan and more recently in Pakistan. This trend is continuing.

    The pattern will vary from year to year, depending on the religious composition of the country where the persecution is occurring, and if a particular religious group is being persecuted.

    I would expect that the number of Christians currently facing persecution in the Middle East, particularly in Egypt and Syria, is likely to increase. Christians represent about 10% of the population in both countries the highest in the Middle East. If the Assad regime in Syria falls both minority Alawite and Christian communities are likely to be in jeopardy. Over a million Syrians have already fled to neighbouring countries.

    Christians in the Middle East, the birthplace of Christianity, have fallen from 20% in the early 20th Century to about 5% today.

    The religious pattern of asylum seekers and refugees is hard to predict. What is clear is that it is nonsense to assume that most of them to date are Muslim.

    John Menadue